format: text

text:
# t-structures on the derived categories of holonomic D-modules and coherent O-modules

## 1. introduction

It was one of the motivations of the introduction of the notions of $`t`$-structures and perverse sheaves by A. Beilinson, J. Bernstein, P. Deligne and O. Gabber () to ask what are the objects corresponding to regular holonomic $`𝒟_X`$-modules by the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence () $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_X):\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{D}_c^\mathrm{b}(_X)^{\mathrm{op}}`$. Here $`X`$ is a complex manifold, $`\mathrm{D}_c^\mathrm{b}(_X)^{\mathrm{op}}`$ is the opposite category of the derived category $`\mathrm{D}_c^\mathrm{b}(_X)`$ of bounded complexes of sheaves on $`X`$ with constructible cohomologies, and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ is the derived category of bounded complexes of $`𝒟_X`$-modules with regular holonomic cohomologies. With the notion of $`t`$-structures, the answer is: the $`t`$-structure of the middle perversity on $`\mathrm{D}_c^\mathrm{b}(_X)`$ corresponds to the trivial $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the converse question: what is the $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ corresponding to the trivial $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_c^\mathrm{b}(_X)`$. In fact, this $`t`$-structure can be extended to a $`t`$-structure on the derived category $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ of bounded complexes of $`𝒟_X`$-modules with quasi-coherent cohomologies. In this paper, we treat an algebraic case, i.e. when $`X`$ is a smooth algebraic variety. In this case, the corresponding $`t`$-structure $`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X))`$ is given as follows.

$`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)=\left\{\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X);\mathrm{codim}\mathrm{Supp}(H^n())n\text{ for every }n0\right\},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)=\left\{\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X);_Z^k()=0\text{ for any closed subset }Z\text{ and }k<\mathrm{codim}Z\right\}.`$
Similar results hold for a complex analytic manifold $`X`$.

More general results are given in this paper. For a left Noetherian $`𝒪_X`$-ring $`𝒜`$ quasi-coherent over $`𝒪_X`$ and a decreasing sequence of families of supports $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\mathrm{\Phi }^n\}_n`$, the pair

$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜);\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M))\mathrm{\Phi }^k\text{ for any }k\},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜);_{\mathrm{\Phi }^n}^k(M)=0\text{ if }k<n\}`$
gives a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ (Theorem 3.5). This construction is similar to the one of the perverse sheaves. The $`t`$-structure $`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X))`$ corresponds to the case where $`𝒜=𝒟_X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=𝔖`$, where $`𝔖^k`$ is the family of supports consisting of closed subsets with codimension $`k`$.

However, this $`t`$-structure does not always induce a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$, the derived category of complexes of $`𝒪_X`$-modules with coherent cohomologies. We give the necessary and sufficient condition for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to give a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ (Theorem 5.9). 111After writing this paper, the author was informed the existence of the paper “Perverse coherent sheaves (after Deligne)”, math.AG/0005152 by Roman Bezrukavnikov, in which it is proved in a more general setting that the condition for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to give a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ is sufficient. This condition resembles the one for perversity.

The paper is organized as follows. In §2, we briefly review the notion of $`t`$-structures.

In §3, we introduce the $`t`$-structure $`({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜),{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜))`$ on the triangulated category $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$, and studies its properties.

In §4, we study the $`t`$-structure on the derived category $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ which corresponds to the standard $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ by the duality functor $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(,𝒪_X)`$. We also give the relation between this $`t`$-structure and flatness (Proposition 4.6).

In §5, we give the condition for a decreasing sequence of families of supports to give a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ (Theorem 5.9). This is a generalization of \[6, Exercise X.2\].

In §6, we study the $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$.

In the last section, we give a proof of the stability of injectivity under filtrant inductive limits (Lemma 3.1).

While writing this paper, the author received the preprint  by A. Yekutieli and James J. Zhang, where they proposed similar $`t`$-structures.

## 2. t-structure

In this section, we recall the notion of $`t`$-structures. For details, see . Let $`𝐃`$ be a triangulated category. Let $`𝐃^0`$ and $`𝐃^0`$ be full subcategories of $`𝐃`$. We set $`𝐃^n\mathrm{:=}𝐃^0[n]`$ and $`𝐃^n\mathrm{:=}𝐃^0[n]`$. We also use the notations: $`𝐃^{<n}\mathrm{:=}𝐃^{n1}`$ and $`𝐃^{>n}\mathrm{:=}𝐃^{n+1}`$. The pair $`(𝐃^0,𝐃^0)`$ is called a $`t`$-structure on $`𝐃`$ if it satisfies the following conditions:

(2.1a) $`𝐃^{<0}𝐃^0`$ and $`𝐃^{>0}𝐃^0`$,
(2.1b) $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝐃(X,Y)=0`$ for $`X𝐃^{<0}`$ and $`Y𝐃^0`$,
(2.1d) $`\begin{array}{c}\text{For any }X𝐃\text{, there exists a distinguished triangle }X^{}XX^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}\text{ with }X^{}𝐃^{<0}\text{ and }X^{\prime \prime }𝐃^0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
Then one has
(2.1e)
Note that the $`t`$-structure is a self-dual notion: if $`(𝐃^0,𝐃^0)`$ is a $`t`$-structure on a triangulated category $`𝐃`$, then $`((𝐃^0)^{\mathrm{op}},(𝐃^0)^{\mathrm{op}})`$ is a $`t`$-structure on the opposite triangulated category $`𝐃^{\mathrm{op}}`$.

In the paper, we use the following results.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`𝐃`$ be a triangulated category, and assume that $`(𝐃^0,𝐃^0)`$ satisfies (2.1e). Let $`M_1MM_2\stackrel{+1}{}`$ be a distinguished triangle. If one of the following conditions (i) and (ii) is satisfied, then there exists a distinguished triangle $`M^{}MM^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}`$ with $`M^{}𝐃^{<0}`$ and $`M^{\prime \prime }𝐃^0`$.

1. $`M_1𝐃^{<0}`$ and there exists a distinguished triangle $`M_2^{}M_2M_2^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}`$ with $`M_2^{}𝐃^{<0}`$ and $`M_2^{\prime \prime }𝐃^0`$.
2. $`M_2𝐃^0`$ and there exists a distinguished triangle $`M_1^{}M_1M_1^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}`$ with $`M_1^{}𝐃^{<0}`$ and $`M_1^{\prime \prime }𝐃^0`$.

###### Proof.

Assume the condition (i). By the octahedral axiom,

one has distinguished triangles $`M_1M^{}M_2^{}\stackrel{+1}{}`$ and $`M^{}MM_2^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}`$. Hence $`M^{}𝐃^{<0}`$ by (2.1e).

The condition (ii) is the dual form of (i). ∎

The following lemma is almost obvious.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`F:𝐃𝐃^{}`$ be an equivalence of triangulated categories. Let $`(𝐃^0,𝐃^0)`$ be a $`t`$-structure on $`𝐃`$, and let $`(𝐃^{}{}_{}{}^{0},𝐃^{}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ be a pair of full subcategories of $`𝐃^{}`$ satisfying (2.1a) and (2.1b). If $`F`$ sends $`𝐃^0`$ to $`𝐃^{}^0`$ and $`𝐃^0`$ to $`𝐃^{}^0`$, then $`(𝐃^{}{}_{}{}^{0},𝐃^{}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ is a $`t`$-structure on $`𝐃^{}`$.

Let $`𝐃^{}`$ be another triangulated category, and let $`(𝐃^0,𝐃^0)`$ and $`(𝐃^{}{}_{}{}^{0},𝐃^{}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ be a $`t`$-structure on $`𝐃`$ and $`𝐃^{}`$, respectively. A functor $`F:𝐃𝐃^{}`$ of triangulated categories is called left exact if $`F`$ sends $`𝐃^0`$ to $`𝐃^{}^0`$. It is called right exact if it sends $`𝐃^0`$ to $`𝐃^{}^0`$. It is called exact if it is left exact and right exact.

## 3. t-structures on a Noetherian scheme

Let $`X`$ be a finite-dimensional Noetherian separated scheme. Let $`𝒜`$ be an $`𝒪_X`$-ring, i.e. a (not necessarily commutative) ring on $`X`$ with a ring morphism $`𝒪_X𝒜`$. We assume that $`𝒜`$ is quasi-coherent as a left $`𝒪_X`$-module, and that $`𝒜`$ is left Noetherian (e.g. see \[5, Definition A.7\]). Under the first assumption, the second is equivalent to saying that $`𝒜(U)`$ is a left Noetherian ring for any affine open subset $`U`$.

Let $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒜)`$ be the category of (left) $`𝒜`$-modules, and $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒜)`$) its full subcategory of quasi-coherent (resp. coherent) $`𝒜`$-modules. Note that an $`𝒜`$-module is quasi-coherent over $`𝒜`$ if and only if it is quasi-coherent over $`𝒪_X`$.

One has the following lemma whose proof is given in the last section 7.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Any filtrant inductive limit of injective objects of $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒜)`$ is injective.

Let $`\mathrm{D}(𝒜)`$ be the derived category of $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒜)`$, and let $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ be the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{D}(𝒜)`$ consisting of objects with bounded cohomologies. Let $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$) be the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ consisting of objects with quasi-coherent (resp. coherent) cohomologies. We define

$`\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}\{M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜);H^k(M)=0\text{ for }k>n\},`$
$`\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}\{M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜);H^k(M)=0\text{ for }k<n\}`$
and similarly $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒜)`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^n(𝒜)`$, etc. We call the $`t`$-structure $`(\mathrm{D}^0(𝒜),\mathrm{D}^0(𝒜))`$ the standard $`t`$-structure. Let us denote by $`\tau ^n:\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ and $`\tau ^n:\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ the truncation functors with respect to the standard $`t`$-structure.

In this section, we shall give $`t`$-structures on $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$.

In this paper, a family of supports means a set $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of closed subsets of $`X`$ satisfying the following conditions:

1. If $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`Z^{}`$ is a closed subset of $`Z`$, then $`Z^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$.
2. For $`Z`$, $`Z^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the union $`ZZ^{}`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.
3. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ contains the empty set.

Then the set of families of supports has the structure of an ordered set by inclusion. The join of families of supports $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset such that }ZZ_1Z_2\text{ for some }Z_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1\text{ and some }Z_2\mathrm{\Phi }_2\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset such that }Z=Z_1Z_2\text{ for some }Z_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1\text{ and some }Z_2\mathrm{\Phi }_2\}.`$
Note that an irreducible closed subset $`Z`$ is a member of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ if and only if one has either $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ or $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. Their meet is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\{Z;Z\mathrm{\Phi }_1\text{ and }Z\mathrm{\Phi }_2\}.`$
We sometimes regard a closed subset $`S`$ of $`X`$ as the family of supports consisting of closed subsets of $`S`$. Hence for a closed subset $`S`$ and a family of supports $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, one has $`\mathrm{\Phi }S=\left\{Z\mathrm{\Phi };ZS\right\}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }S`$ is the the family of supports consisting of closed subsets $`Z`$ such that $`\overline{ZS}\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

For a sheaf $`F`$, one sets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(F)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_{Z\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(F)`$. Then one has

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(U;\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(F))=\left\{sF(U);\overline{\mathrm{supp}(s)}\mathrm{\Phi }\right\}\text{ for any open subset }U\text{,}$$

because $`X`$ is Noetherian. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a left exact functor from $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒜)`$ to itself, and also it sends $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$ to itself. It commutes with filtrant inductive limits. It is well-known that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ sends injective objects of $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒜)`$ to injective objects. Hence, by Lemma 3.1, the functor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ also sends injective objects of $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒜)`$ to injective objects. Let $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }:\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ be the right derived functor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Similarly, we can define $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }:\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(_X)\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(_X)`$, where $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(_X)`$ is the derived category of bounded complexes of $`_X`$-modules. The functors $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ commutes with the forgetful functor $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(_X)`$.

For $`M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$, let $`\mathrm{Supp}(M)`$ denote the family of supports consisting of closed subsets $`Z`$ such that $`Z_{i=1}^n\overline{\mathrm{supp}(s_i)}`$ for open subsets $`U_i`$, integers $`n_i`$ and $`s_iH^{n_i}(M)(U_i)`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{Supp}(M)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is equivalent to saying that $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\stackrel{}{}M`$.

One sets $`_\mathrm{\Phi }^n(M)\mathrm{:=}H^n(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M))`$. One has $`_\mathrm{\Phi }^n(M)\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_{Z\mathrm{\Phi }}_Z^n(M)`$ for any $`M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ and any integer $`n`$.

For any $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$, one has an isomorphism ()

(3.1) $`_\mathrm{\Phi }^n(M)\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_Ixt_{𝒪_X}^n(𝒪_X/I,M)`$
as $`𝒪_X`$-modules. Here the inductive limit is taken over coherent ideals $`I`$ of $`𝒪_X`$ such that $`\mathrm{Supp}(𝒪_X/I)\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Since an $`𝒜`$-module is quasi-coherent if and only if it is quasi-coherent over $`𝒪_X`$, the functor $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces a functor

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }:\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜).$$

###### Remark 3.2.

Although one neither gives a proof nor uses it in this paper, one has $`_\mathrm{\Phi }^n(M)\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_Ixt_𝒜^n(𝒜/𝒜I,M)`$. Here the inductive limit is taken over $`I`$ as above. Hence an injective object of $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$ is a flabby sheaf (see Remark 7.4).

The following lemma is obvious.

###### Lemma 3.3.

1. For families of supports $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, one has $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}`$.
2. For $`M`$, $`K\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ with $`\mathrm{Supp}(M)\mathrm{\Phi }`$, one has

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(M,\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }K)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(M,K)$$

and $`xt_𝒜^n(M,\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }K)\stackrel{}{}xt_𝒜^n(M,K)`$ for every $`n`$.
3. If $`M\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$, then $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ and $`H^n(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M))=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(H^n(M))`$.
4. For a locally closed subset $`Z`$ of $`X`$ and a family $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of supports, one has

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z.$$
5. For an open embedding $`j:UX`$, one has $`\mathrm{R}j_{}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }|_U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{R}j_{}`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_U`$ is the family of supports on $`U`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }|_U\mathrm{:=}\{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset of }U\text{ such that }\overline{Z}\mathrm{\Phi }\}=\left\{ZU;Z\mathrm{\Phi }\right\}.$$

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ and $`n`$ an integer, and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be families of supports.

1. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$, then $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Psi }(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$.
2. $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ for every $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }`$.
3. If $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)`$, $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Psi }(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$, then $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }}(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$.
4. If $`_{\overline{\{x\}}}^k(M)_x=0`$ for any $`k<n`$ and any $`x`$ such that $`\overline{\{x\}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$.

###### Proof.

(i) follows immediately from $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Psi }(M)\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)`$, and (ii) follows from (i) and $`_\mathrm{\Phi }^k(M)\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_{Z\mathrm{\Phi }}_Z^k(M)`$.

Let us show (iii). By (i) and (ii), it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1Z_2}(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ for closed subsets $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1}(M)`$, $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_2}(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$. Since one has

$$\tau ^{<n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1Z_2}(M)|_{XZ_1}\tau ^{<n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_2}(M)|_{XZ_1}=0,$$

the support of $`\tau ^{<n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1Z_2}(M))`$ is contained in $`Z_1`$. In the distinguished triangle

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1}\left(\tau ^{<n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1Z_2}(M)\right)\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1Z_2}(M)\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1}\left(\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1Z_2}(M)\right),$$

the second term is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1}(M)`$ which belongs to $`\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$, and the last term also belongs to $`\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$. Hence the first term, isomorphic to $`\tau ^{<n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1Z_2}(M)`$, belongs to $`\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$, and therefore it vanishes.

(iv) By the induction on $`n`$, one may assume that $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{D}^{n1}(𝒜)`$. For an open set $`U`$ and $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(U;_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n1}(M))`$, set $`S\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{supp}(s)`$. Let us show that $`S=\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise, let us take the generic point $`x`$ of an irreducible component of $`S`$. Then one has $`\overline{\{x\}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S\left(_\mathrm{\Phi }^{n1}(M)\right)=_S^{n1}(M)`$ and $`_S^{n1}(M)_x=_{\overline{\{x\}}}^{n1}(M)_x`$, the germ of $`s`$ at $`x`$ must vanish, which is a contradiction. ∎

A support datum is a decreasing sequence $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{:=}\{\mathrm{\Phi }^n\}_n`$ of families of supports satisfying the following conditions:

(3.2a) for $`n0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^n`$ is the set of all closed subsets of $`X`$,
(3.2b) for $`n0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^n`$ is $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$.
For a support datum $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and an integer $`n`$, let $`\sigma ^n\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denote the support datum given by

$`(\sigma ^n\mathrm{\Phi })^k=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }^k\hfill & \text{for }kn,\hfill \\ \{\mathrm{}\}\hfill & \text{for }k>n.\hfill \end{array}`$
Let $`𝕋`$ denote the support datum given by

$$𝕋^n=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left\{\text{all closed subsets of }X\right\}\hfill & \text{for }n0\text{,}\hfill \\ \{\mathrm{}\}\hfill & \text{for }n>0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

For a support datum $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\mathrm{\Phi }^n\}_n`$, we set

(3.6) $`\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{n}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}\{M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜);\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M))\mathrm{\Phi }^{kn}\text{ for any }k\},\hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{n}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜);\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^k}(M)\mathrm{D}^{k+n}(𝒜)\text{ for any }k\},\hfill \end{array}`$
and $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{n}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{n}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$, $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{n}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{n}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$.

###### Theorem 3.5.

$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒜),{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒜))`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜),{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜))`$ are a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$, respectively.

Note that $`{}_{}{}^{𝕋}\mathrm{D}_{}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)`$ is the standard $`t`$-structure.

Since the proof for $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)`$ is similar, we only give a proof for $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)`$. We divide the proof of the theorem into several steps. It is evident that $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)`$ satisfies the conditions (2.1a) and (2.1e). Let us show that it satisfies (2.1b).

###### Lemma 3.6.

For $`M{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{<0}(𝒜)`$ and $`K{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒜)`$, one has

$`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(M,K)=0\text{ and }xt_𝒜^n(M,K)=0\text{ for }n0\text{.}`$
###### Proof.

We shall show

(3.6)n $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(M,K)=0`$ for $`M{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{<0}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ and $`K{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒜)`$
by the induction on $`n`$. Since $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}^{>n}(𝒜)`$ for $`n0`$, (3.6)n is satisfied for $`n0`$. Assuming (3.6)n-1, let us show (3.6)n. One has $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^n(M)[n])\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}`$, $`H^n(M)[n]\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ and $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}K\mathrm{D}^{>n}(𝒜)`$. Hence one has

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(H^n(M)[n],K)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(H^n(M)[n],\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(K))=0.$$

The distinguished triangle $`\tau ^{<n}MMH^n(M)[n]\stackrel{+1}{}`$ induces an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(H^n(M)[n],K)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(M,K)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(\tau ^{<n}M,K).$$

Since $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(\tau ^{<n}M,K)=0`$ by (3.6)n-1, we obtain $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(M,K)=0`$.

The proof of the second statement is similar. ∎

Hence, it remains to prove the following statement for any $`M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$:

(3.7)
###### Proof of (3.7).

For $`n`$, let us consider the following statement:

(3.7)n  The property (3.7) holds if $`M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M)\mathrm{D}^i(𝒜)`$ for any $`in`$, i.e. if $`M{}_{}{}^{\sigma ^n\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒜)`$.
Since every $`M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M)\mathrm{D}^i(𝒜)`$ for $`i0`$, it is enough to show (3.7)n for every $`n`$. We shall show (3.7)n by the descending induction on $`n`$. Note that (3.7)n holds for sufficiently large $`n`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}=\{\mathrm{}\}`$, because such an $`M`$ satisfies $`M{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒜)`$.

We shall prove (3.7)n by assuming (3.7)n+1. Suppose that $`M\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M)\mathrm{D}^i(𝒜)`$ for any $`in`$. Let us consider a distinguished triangle

$$\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M)MM^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}.$$

Since $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M)=\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^n}(M)`$, one has $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M)\mathrm{D}^n(𝒜)`$ and

(3.8) $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}^n(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(_{\mathrm{\Phi }^n}^n(M)).`$
Moreover one has

$`\mathrm{Supp}(H^i(\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M)))`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for }in\text{,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}\hfill & \text{for }i=n\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$
One concludes therefore that $`\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M){}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{}^{<0}(𝒜)`$. If one shows

(3.10) $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{D}^i(𝒜)`$ for any $`in+1`$,
then we can apply (3.7)n+1 to $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ and (3.7) is satisfied for $`M^{\prime \prime }`$. Hence Lemma 2.1 implies that (3.7) is satisfied for $`M`$.

It remains to prove (3.10), i.e. $`H^k(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M^{\prime \prime }))=0`$ for $`k<in+1`$. For $`in+1`$ one has $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M))=\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M)`$. Hence we have a long exact sequence

$`H^k(\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M))\stackrel{𝜉}{}H^k(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M))H^k(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M^{\prime \prime }))`$
$`H^{k+1}(\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M))\stackrel{𝜂}{}H^{k+1}(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M)).`$
Hence it is enough to show that $`\xi `$ is surjective and $`\eta `$ is injective for $`k<in+1`$.

For $`k<i=n+1`$, $`\xi `$ is an isomorphism, and for $`k<in`$ one has $`H^k(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}(M))=0`$.

The morphism $`\eta `$ is injective for $`i=n+1`$, and also for $`k=n1<i=n`$ by (3.8). In the remaining case $`k<n1`$, one has $`H^{k+1}(\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M))=0`$. ∎

This $`t`$-structure behaves as follows under the local cohomology functors and the direct image functors.

###### Lemma 3.7.

1. For a locally closed subset $`Z`$ of $`X`$, the functor $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z:\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ is left exact, i.e. it sends $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$ to itself.
2. Let $`j:UX`$ be an open set of $`X`$. Then $`j^1:\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜|_U)`$ is exact, and $`\mathrm{R}j_{}:\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜|_U)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ is left exact.

###### Proof.

(i) follows immediately from $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(M)=\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^n}(M)`$, which is a consequence of Lemma 3.3 (iii), and (ii) follows from $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^n}\mathrm{R}j_{}(M)=\mathrm{R}j_{}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^n}(M)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.8.

For an open subset $`U`$ of $`X`$, let $`𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}(U)`$ be the heart $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }|_U}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜|_U){}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }|_U}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜|_U)`$ of the $`t`$-structure $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }|_U}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜|_U)`$. Then, $`U𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}(U)`$ is a stack on $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`X`$ is Noetherian, it is enough to show that, for open sets $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ with $`X=U_1U_2`$, $`M_{12}𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}(U_1U_2)`$ and $`M_i𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}(U_i)`$ with an isomorphism $`\phi _i:M_i|_{U_1U_2}\stackrel{}{}M_{12}|_{U_1U_2}`$ ($`i=1,2`$), there exist $`M𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}(X)`$ and isomorphisms $`\psi _i:M|_{U_i}\stackrel{}{}M_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) such that the following diagram commutes.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}M|_{U_1U_2}& \stackrel{\psi _1}{}& M_1|_{U_1U_2}\\ \psi _2& & \phi _1& & \\ M_2|_{U_1U_2}& \stackrel{\phi _2}{}& M_{12}\end{array}$$

Let $`j_i:U_iX`$ ($`i=1,2`$) and $`j_{12}:U_1U_2X`$ be the open embeddings, and let

$$M\stackrel{\psi _1\psi _2}{}\mathrm{R}j_1M_1\mathrm{R}j_2M_2\stackrel{\phi _1\phi _2}{}\mathrm{R}j_{12}M_{12}\stackrel{+1}{}$$

be a distinguished triangle. Since $`\mathrm{R}j_2M_2|_{U_1}\mathrm{R}j_{12}M_{12}|_{U_1}`$ is an isomorphism, $`M|_{U_1}\mathrm{R}j_1M_1|_{U_1}M_1`$ is an isomorphism. The commutativity of the diagram above is obvious by the construction. ∎

Let us remark that $`({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜),{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜))`$ is not necessarily a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ (see Example 5.1 and Example 6.1). In the coherent case, the proof of Theorem 3.5 fails, because $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not respect coherency.

## 4. The dual standard t-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$

In the sequel, we assume that $`X`$ is a finite-dimensional regular Noetherian separated scheme. Let us denote by $`𝔖`$ the support datum given by

(4.3) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝔖^d\mathrm{:=}& \{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset of }X\text{ such that }\mathrm{codim}Zd\}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset of }X\text{ such that }dim𝒪_{X,x}d\text{ for any }xZ\}.\hfill \end{array}`$
One has

$`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜);\mathrm{Supp}(H^n(M))𝔖^n\text{ for every }n0\},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)\mathrm{:=}\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^0(𝒜);_Z^n(M)=0\text{ for any closed subset }Z\text{ and }n<\mathrm{codim}Z\}.`$
###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`Z`$ be a locally closed subset of $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z:\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ is an exact functor with respect to the $`t`$-structure $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)`$.

###### Proof.

It is already proved that $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ is left exact. Let us prove that it is right exact, i.e. it sends $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$ into itself.

We shall first prove it when $`Z`$ is closed. We may assume that $`X`$ is affine. Writing $`Z=_{i=1}^nf_i^1(0)`$ with $`f_i\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;𝒪_X)`$, and using $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_1^1(0)}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{_{i1}f_i^1(0)}`$, the induction on $`n`$ reduces to the case $`Z=f^1(0)`$ for some $`f\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;𝒪_X)`$. By devissage, it is enough to prove that $`\mathrm{Supp}(_Z^k(F[d]))𝔖^k`$ for any $`k`$ and $`F\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{Supp}(F)𝔖^d`$. Since $`_Z^k`$ commutes with filtrant inductive limits, we may assume that $`F`$ is coherent. Set $`S\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{Supp}(F)𝔖^d`$. One has $`_Z^k(F)=0`$ for $`k0`$, $`1`$. Since $`_Z^0(F)F`$, one has $`\mathrm{Supp}(_Z^0(F))\mathrm{Supp}(F)𝔖^d`$. We can divide $`S=S_1S_2`$ with closed subsets $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ such that $`S_1f^1(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{codim}(S_2f^1(0))>d`$. Then on has $`\mathrm{Supp}(_Z^1(F))S_2𝔖^{d+1}`$.

For a locally closed $`Z`$, let us show $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(M){}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$ for any $`M{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$. Writing $`Z=Z_1Z_2`$ with closed $`Z_2Z_1X`$, by the distinguished triangle

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_2}(M)\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1}(M)\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(M)\stackrel{+1}{},$$

the desired result $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(M){}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$ follows from $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_2}(M)[1]`$, $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z_1}(M){}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`j:UX`$ be an open embedding. Then $`\mathrm{R}j_{}:\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜|_U)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$ is exact with respect to the $`t`$-structures $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜|_U)`$.

###### Proof.

Since the left exactitude has been proved, let us show that $`\mathrm{R}j_{}`$ sends $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜|_U)`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$. Let us denote by $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\tau _{}^{0}`$ the truncation functor with respect to the $`t`$-structure $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)`$. For $`N{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜|_U)`$, one has $`j^1({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\tau _{}^{0}\mathrm{R}j_{}N)N`$, and hence $`\mathrm{R}j_{}N\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_U({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\tau _{}^{0}\mathrm{R}j_{}N)`$ belongs to $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$ by Proposition 4.1. ∎

In the rest of this section, we treat the case where $`𝒜=𝒪_X`$. Set

$`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{:=}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)\text{and}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{:=}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X),`$
and $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{:=}({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X))`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

1. The pair $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)`$ is a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$.
2. The equivalence of triangulated categories

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(,𝒪_X):\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)^{\mathrm{op}}$$

sends $`(\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^0(𝒪_X),\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^0(𝒪_X))`$ to $`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)^{\mathrm{op}},{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)^{\mathrm{op}})`$.

###### Remark 4.4.

In \[6, Exercise X.2\] and Theorem 5.9, more general results are given.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 2.2, it is enough to show that the functor $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(,𝒪_X)`$ sends $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^0(𝒪_X)`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^0(𝒪_X)`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$, respectively.

First assume that $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^0(𝒪_X)`$. Then one has

$`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^d}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(M,𝒪_X)\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(M,\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^d}(𝒪_X)).`$
Since $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^d}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^d(𝒪_X)`$, one has $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^d}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(M,𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^d(𝒪_X)`$.

Next assume $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^0(𝒪_X)`$, and set $`S\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{Supp}(H^d(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(M,𝒪_X)))`$. For $`xS`$, one has $`H^d(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(M,𝒪_X))_x\mathrm{Ext}_{𝒪_{X,x}}^d(M_x,𝒪_{X,x})0`$. Since the homological dimension of $`𝒪_{X,x}`$ is equal to $`dim𝒪_{X,x}`$, one has $`ddim𝒪_{X,x}`$. Hence one concludes that $`S𝔖^d`$. ∎

The category $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$ is described by a more familiar notion: flatness.

###### Definition 4.5.

An object of $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ is called with flat dimension $`0`$ if it is isomorphic to a bounded complex $`M^{}`$ of flat $`𝒪_X`$-modules such that $`M^n=0`$ for $`n<0`$.

###### Proposition 4.6.

For $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$, the following conditions are equivalent.

1. $`M{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$.
2. $`M`$ is of flat dimension $`0`$.
3. For any coherent $`𝒪_X`$-module $`F`$, one has $`F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^0\left(𝒪_X\right)`$.
4. For any $`N\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^0(𝒪_X)`$, one has $`N\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^0\left(𝒪_X\right)`$.

###### Proof.

The equivalence (ii)—(iv) is more or less well-known.

(iv)$``$ (i) For every $`n0`$, one has $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^n}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒪_X)`$. Hence (iv) implies that $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^n}(M)\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^n}(𝒪_X)\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒪_X)`$.

(i)$``$ (iii) For a coherent $`𝒪_X`$-module $`F`$, set $`N=\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(F,𝒪_X){}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$. Then one has $`F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(N,M)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^0\left(𝒪_X\right)`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.7.

Let $`𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}\mathrm{:=}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X){}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$ be the heart of the $`t`$-structure $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)`$, and let $`𝒞_{\mathrm{coh}}\mathrm{:=}𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ be the heart of the $`t`$-structure $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)`$. The abelian category $`𝒞_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒪_X)^{\mathrm{op}}`$. It is well-known that the category $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒪_X)`$ is equivalent to the category $`\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒪_X))`$ of ind-objects of the category of coherent modules. I conjecture that $`𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞_{\mathrm{coh}})\left(\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒪_X))\right)^{\mathrm{op}}`$. Here $`\mathrm{Pro}`$ means the category of pro-objects.

## 5. t-structures on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪)`$

For a support datum $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, one sets

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)={}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)\text{ and }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)={}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X),$$

and $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{:=}({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X),{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X))`$. As seen in the example below, $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)`$ is not necessarily a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$. In this section, we give a criterian for $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)`$ to be a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$.

For an integer $`n`$ and $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)`$, we denote by $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}H_{}^{n}(M){}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜){}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒜)`$ the $`n`$-th cohomology with respect to the $`t`$-structure $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒜)`$.

###### Example 5.1.

Let $`k`$ be a field, and $`A=k[x]`$ with an indeterminate $`x`$. Let $`X=\mathrm{Spec}(A)`$ be the line. Set

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝔖^0\hfill & \text{for }i0\text{,}\hfill \\ 𝔖^1\hfill & \text{for }i=1\text{}2\text{,}\hfill \\ \{\mathrm{}\}\hfill & \text{for }i3\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
Then, the corresponding $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ is given by:

(5.2a) $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^2(𝒪_X);\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;H^1(M))\text{ and }\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;H^2(M))\text{ are torsion }A\text{-modules}\right\},`$
(5.2b) $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^0(𝒪_X);\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^1}(M)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^2(𝒪_X)\right\}.`$
Let $`𝒞\mathrm{:=}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X){}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$ be the heart of this $`t`$-structure. Since any object of $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ has a form $`M_n[n]`$ with $`M_n\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒪_X)`$, one has

$$𝒞=\{LM[2];L\text{ is a vector space over }k(x)\text{ and }M\text{ is a torsion }k[x]\text{-module}\}.$$

Here and in the rest of this example, we confuse $`A`$-modules and quasi-coherent $`𝒪_X`$-modules. Since $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(L,M[2])=\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(M[2],L)=0`$ for such an $`L`$ and $`M`$, the abelian category $`𝒞`$ is the direct sum of $`\mathrm{Mod}(k(x))`$ and the abelian category $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{tor}}(k[x])`$ of torsion $`k[x]`$-modules.

Let $`K\mathrm{Mod}(𝒪_X)`$ be the sheaf of rational functions. Then $`K`$ and $`(K/𝒪_X)[2]`$ belong to $`𝒞`$. Hence the distinguished triangle

$$(K/𝒪_X)[2][1]𝒪_XK\stackrel{+1}{}$$

implies

$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}H_{}^{n}(𝒪_X)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(K/𝒪_X)[2]\hfill & \text{for }n=1\text{,}\hfill \\ K\hfill & \text{for }n=0\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }n1\text{}0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
Hence, $`({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X),{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X))`$ is not a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$.

The categories $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒞)`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ are not equivalent as categories. Indeed, the object $`K𝒞\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒞)`$ is a non-zero object of $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒞)`$ such that any non-zero morphism $`WK`$ in $`\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{b}(𝒞)`$ has a section. However there is no object of $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ with such properties. If $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ has such properties, then, since $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)}(𝒪_X[n],M)0`$ for some $`n`$, $`M`$ must be a direct summand of $`𝒪_X[n]`$. Since $`\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)}(𝒪_X[n])k[x]`$ does not have a non trivial idempotent, $`M`$ must be isomorphic to $`𝒪_X[n]`$. However, $`x:𝒪_X[n]𝒪_X[n]`$ is a non-zero morphism but not an epimorphism.

In , Y. T. Siu and G. Trautmann studied the vanishing and the coherency of local cohomologies. Although they discussed in the analytic framework, their main results, in our context, may be stated as follows. Let $`M\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒪_X)`$, $`Z`$ a closed subset of $`X`$ and $`n`$ an integer. Then one has

1. $`_Z^k(M)=0`$ for any $`k<n`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{codim}\left(Z\mathrm{Supp}(xt_{𝒪_X}^k(M,𝒪_X))\right)k+n`$ for any $`k`$.
2. $`_Z^k(M)`$ is coherent for any $`k<n`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{codim}\left(Z\overline{\mathrm{Supp}(xt_{𝒪_X}^k(M,𝒪_X))(XZ)}\right)k+n`$ for any $`k`$.

We shall generalize these statements to the derived category case.

We keep the notation: $`X`$ is a finite-dimensional regular Noetherian separated scheme.

For $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$, let us denote by $`M^{}`$ its dual: $`M^{}\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒪_X}(M,𝒪_X)`$.

###### Proposition 5.2.

Let $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$.

1. For an integer n and a closed subset $`Z`$ of $`X`$, $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(M)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒪_X)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{codim}(Z\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))k+n`$ for any $`k`$.
2. For an integer n and a family of supports $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒪_X)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))𝔖^{k+n}`$ for every $`k`$.

###### Proof.

(ii) is a consequence of (i). Let us show (i). $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(M)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒪_X)`$ if and only if

(5.4) $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(F,M)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^n(𝒪_X)`$
for any $`F\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒪_X)`$ with $`\mathrm{Supp}(F)Z`$. Since $`\left(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(F,M)\right)^{}=F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M^{}`$, (5.4) is equivalent to $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M^{}))𝔖^{k+n}`$ for every $`k`$ by Proposition 4.3 (ii). The last condition is equivalent to $`Z\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))𝔖^{k+n}`$ by the lemma below. ∎

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ and $`Z`$, $`S`$ closed subsets. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

1. $`Z\mathrm{Supp}(\tau ^0M)S`$.
2. $`\mathrm{Supp}(\tau ^0(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M))S`$ for any $`F\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒪_X)`$ with $`\mathrm{Supp}(F)Z`$.

###### Proof.

(i)$``$(ii) For $`k0`$, an exact sequence $`H^k(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}\tau ^{<k}M)H^k\left(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M\right)H^k\left(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}\tau ^kM\right)`$ and $`H^k(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}\tau ^{<k}M)=0`$ implies

$$\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M))\mathrm{Supp}(H^k\left(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}\tau ^kM\right)\mathrm{Supp}\left(F\right)\mathrm{Supp}\left(\tau ^kM\right)S.$$

(ii)$``$(i) Let $`xZ\mathrm{Supp}(\tau ^0M)`$. Take the largest $`k0`$ such that $`x\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M))`$. If one chooses a coherent $`𝒪_X`$-module $`F`$ with $`\mathrm{Supp}(F)=Z`$, then $`F_x0`$ and $`H^k(M)_x0`$, which implies that $`F_x_{𝒪_{X,x}}H^k(M)_x0`$. On the other hand, one has

$$H^k(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M)_xH^k\left(F_x\underset{𝒪_{X,x}}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M_x\right)F_x_{𝒪_{X,x}}H^k\left(M\right)_x.$$

Hence one obtains $`x\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(F\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}M))S`$. ∎

###### Proposition 5.4.

Let $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a family of supports and $`n`$ an integer. Then, $`\tau ^{<n}(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M))\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{k+n}`$ for any $`k`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }^k`$ is the family of supports consisting of closed subsets $`Z`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }Z𝔖^k`$.

###### Proof.

Assume first $`M^{}\mathrm{:=}\tau ^{<n}(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M))\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$. Let us complete the morphism $`M^{}M`$ to a distinguished triangle $`M^{}MM^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}`$. Since one has $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒪_X)`$, Proposition 5.2 implies that $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{\prime \prime }))\mathrm{\Psi }^{k+n}`$ for every $`k`$. The distinguished triangle $`M^{\prime \prime }M^{}M^{}\stackrel{+1}{}`$ implies that $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{\prime \prime }))`$. Since $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{\prime \prime }))\mathrm{\Psi }^{k+n}`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{k+n}`$.

Conversely, assuming that $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^k(M^{}))\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{k+n}`$ for every $`k`$, we shall prove $`\tau ^{<n}(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M))\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$. By devissage, one may assume that $`M^{}=F[k]`$ for $`F\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒪_X)`$ with $`\mathrm{Supp}(F)\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{k+n}`$. Then there is an exact sequence $`0F^{}FF^{\prime \prime }0`$ with $`F^{}`$, $`F^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝒪_X)`$ sucth that $`\mathrm{Supp}(F^{})\mathrm{\Psi }^{k+n}`$ and $`\mathrm{Supp}(F^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Set $`M^{}\mathrm{:=}(F^{}[k])^{}`$ and $`M^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{:=}(F^{\prime \prime }[k])^{}`$. Then $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M^{})\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒪_X)`$ by Proposition 5.2. Since $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M^{\prime \prime })M^{\prime \prime }`$, one has a distingushed triangle $`M^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M^{})\stackrel{+1}{}`$. Since $`\tau ^{<n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M^{})=0`$, one has $`\tau ^{<n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\tau ^{<n}M^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$. ∎

It is sometimes convenient to use $``$-valued functions on $`X`$ instead of support data. We say that a bounded $``$-valued function $`p`$ on $`X`$ is a supporting function if $`p(y)p(x)`$ whenever $`y\overline{\{x\}}`$.

###### Lemma 5.5.

By the following correspondence, the set of support data is isomorphic to the set of supporting functions. To a support datum $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, one associates the supporting function $`p_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ given by $`p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{max}\{n;\overline{\{x\}}\mathrm{\Phi }^n\}`$.

Conversely, to a supporting function $`p`$ on $`X`$, one associates the support datum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p^n=\{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset such that }p(z)n\text{ for any }zZ\}`$.

This lemma immediately follows from the fact that any closed subset is a union of finitely many irreducible closed subsets and that any irreducible subset has a generic point.

One has

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p_𝕋(x)& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill p_𝔖(x)& =\mathrm{codim}(\overline{\{x\}})=dim(𝒪_{X,x}),\hfill \\ \hfill p_{\sigma ^n\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)& =\mathrm{min}(p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x),n),\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}p_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)\hfill & =\mathrm{min}(p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x),p_\mathrm{\Psi }(x)),\hfill \\ p_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)\hfill & =\mathrm{max}(p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x),p_\mathrm{\Psi }(x)).\hfill \end{array}`$
For two support data $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we define the support datum $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by

(5.6) $`(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })^n={\displaystyle \underset{n=i+j}{}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j)`$
Note that $``$ is commutative and associative, and $`𝕋`$ is the unit with respect to $``$: $`𝕋\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for every $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

The following lemma is obvious.

###### Lemma 5.6.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be support data.

1. one has

$$\underset{n=i+j}{}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j)=\underset{n+1=i+j}{}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j).$$
2. Let $`Z`$ be an irreducible closed subset of $`X`$ such that $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ and $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^{a+1}`$. Then $`Z\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{b}`$ if and only if $`Z(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })^{a+b}`$.
3. $`p_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)=p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+p_\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ for any $`xX`$.

###### Proof.

(iii) is obvious. Let us show (i) and (ii). The inclusion $`_{n=i+j}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j)_{n+1=i+j}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j)`$ is obvious. Hence it is enough to show that for any irreducible closed subset $`Z`$, the conditions $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$, $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^{a+1}`$ and $`Z_{a+b+1=i+j}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j)`$ imply $`Z\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{b}`$. Since $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^{a+1}\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{b}`$, one obtains $`Z\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{b}`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.7.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ be three support data.

1. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2)=(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_1)(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2)=(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_1)(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_2)`$.
2. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, then one has $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$.
3. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, then one has $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$.

###### Proof.

(i) is obvious. (ii) follows from Lemma 5.6 (iii), since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ if and only if $`p_{\mathrm{\Psi }_1}(x)p_{\mathrm{\Psi }_2}(x)`$ for every $`xX`$. (iii) is an immediate consequence of (ii). ∎

###### Lemma 5.8.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be a pair of support data. For an integer $`a`$, set

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }^n& \mathrm{:=}\{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset such that }\mathrm{\Phi }^kZ\mathrm{\Theta }^{k+n}\text{ for every }k\},\hfill \\ \hfill (\mathrm{\Psi }_a)^n& \mathrm{:=}\{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset such that }\mathrm{\Phi }^kZ\mathrm{\Theta }^{k+n}\text{ for every }ka\}\hfill \\ & =\left\{Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_{a1})^n;\mathrm{\Phi }^aZ\mathrm{\Theta }^{a+n}\right\}.\hfill \end{array}`$
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{:=}\{\mathrm{\Psi }^n\}_n`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a\mathrm{:=}\{\mathrm{\Psi }_a^n\}_n`$.

1. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ are support data, and $`p_\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mathrm{min}\{p_\mathrm{\Theta }(y)p_\mathrm{\Phi }(y);y\overline{\{x\}}\}`$.
2. If a support datum $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }`$, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }`$.
3. There exists a support datum $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }`$ if and only if $`0p_\mathrm{\Phi }(y)p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x)p_\mathrm{\Theta }(y)p_\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ whenever $`y\overline{\{x\}}`$.
4. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Theta }`$, then one has $`(\sigma ^a\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Psi }_a=\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for every integer $`a`$.
5. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Then one has $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{a1})^n\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Psi }^n`$ for every $`n`$.
6. Assume that $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{a1})^n\mathrm{\Phi }^a(\mathrm{\Psi }_a)^n`$ for every $`a`$ and $`n`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

(i) is obvious.

(ii) One has $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Theta }.$$

Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and Lemma 5.7 (iii) implies $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

(iii) is obvious.

(iv) We shall apply (iii) and (ii). If $`y\overline{\{x\}}`$, then one has

$$p_{\sigma ^a\mathrm{\Phi }}(y)p_{\sigma ^a\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)=\mathrm{min}(p_\mathrm{\Phi }(y),a)\mathrm{min}(p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x),a)p_\mathrm{\Phi }(y)p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x)p_\mathrm{\Theta }(y)p_\mathrm{\Theta }(x).$$

Here the first inequality follows from $`p_\mathrm{\Phi }(y)p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$.

(v) Let $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_{a1})^n`$ be an irreducible closed subset. We shall show that if $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$, then $`Z\mathrm{\Psi }^n`$. Let us take an integer $`i`$ such that $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ and $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^{i+1}`$. Then one has $`i<a`$. Since $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_{a1})^n`$, one has $`Z=\mathrm{\Phi }^iZ\mathrm{\Theta }^{i+n}=(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })^{i+n}`$. Hence $`Z\mathrm{\Psi }^n`$.

(vi) Let $`Z\mathrm{\Theta }^n`$ be an irreducible closed subset. Let us show $`Z(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })^n`$. Take an integer $`i`$ such that $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ and $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^{i+1}`$. Let us show $`Z\mathrm{\Psi }^{ni}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for $`a0`$, it is enough to show $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_a)^{ni}`$ for every $`a`$. We shall show it by the induction on $`a`$. It is obvious that $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_a)^{ni}`$ for $`a0`$. Assuming that $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_{a1})^{ni}`$, let us show $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_a)^{ni}`$. Since $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_{a1})^{ni}\mathrm{\Phi }^a(\mathrm{\Psi }_a)^{ni}`$, we may assume that $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$, which implies $`ai`$. Therefore one has $`\mathrm{\Phi }^aZ=Z\mathrm{\Theta }^n\mathrm{\Theta }^{ni+a}`$. Together with $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_{a1})^{ni}`$, one obtains $`Z(\mathrm{\Psi }_a)^{ni}`$. ∎

For a support datum $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ denote the support datum given by

(5.8) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}{}_{}{}^{n}\mathrm{:=}\{Z;Z\text{ is a closed subset such that }Z\mathrm{\Phi }^k𝔖^{n+k}\text{ for every }k\}.`$
Now we are ready to give a criterian for $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)`$ to be a $`t`$-structure, which is a generalization of \[6, Exercise X.2\].

###### Theorem 5.9.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a support datum. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

1. $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)`$ is a $`t`$-structure.
2. For any irreducible closed subsets $`Z`$ and $`S`$ such that $`SZ`$ and $`S\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$, one has $`Z\mathrm{\Phi }^{k+\mathrm{codim}(Z)\mathrm{codim}(S)}`$. In terms of supporting functions, one has

$`p_\mathrm{\Phi }(y)p_\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{codim}(\overline{\{y\}})\mathrm{codim}(\overline{\{x\}})=dim(𝒪_{X,y})dim(𝒪_{X,x})`$ if $`y\overline{\{x\}}`$.
3. $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}=𝔖`$.
4. There exists a support datum $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }=𝔖`$.
5. $`(\sigma ^{<n}\mathrm{\Phi })_{}^k\mathrm{\Phi }^n(\sigma ^n\mathrm{\Phi })_{}^k`$ for every $`n`$ and every $`k`$.

Moreover if these conditions are satisfied, the equivalence

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}𝒪_X(,𝒪_X):\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)^{\mathrm{op}}$$

sends the $`t`$-structure $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{\mathrm{b}}(𝒪_X)^{\mathrm{op}}`$.

###### Proof.

The last statement easily follows from Proposition 5.2. The equivalence of (ii)—(v) is already shown.

Let us show (v)$``$ (i). The proof is similar to the one of Theorem 3.5. It is enough to show that any $`M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒪_X)`$ satisfies the following property:

(5.9)
For $`n`$, let us consider the following statement:

(5.9)n  The property (5.9) holds if $`M{}_{}{}^{\sigma ^n\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$.
We shall prove (5.9)n by assuming (5.9)n+1. Let us consider a distinguished triangle

$$\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M)MM^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}.$$

In the course of the proof of Theorem 3.5, we have proved that $`\tau ^n\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}(M)=_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}^n(M)[n]{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{<0}(𝒪_X)`$ and $`M^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\sigma ^{n+1}\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$. Hence it is enough to show that $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}^n(M)`$ is coherent. Since $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }^k}^i(M)=0`$ for $`i<kn`$, Proposition 5.2 implies that $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^i(M^{}))\mathrm{\Phi }^k𝔖^{k+i}`$ for every $`kn`$ and $`i`$. Hence one has $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^i(M^{}))(\sigma ^n\mathrm{\Phi })_{}^i`$ for every $`i`$. Since $`(\sigma ^n\mathrm{\Phi })_{}{}_{}{}^{i}\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}(\sigma ^{n+1}\mathrm{\Phi })_{}^i`$, Proposition 5.4 implies that $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}}^i(M)`$ is coherent for every $`i<n+1`$.

Let us show that (i) implies (ii). In order to see this, it is enough to show that the following situation cannot happen:

Set $`M=𝒪_Z[a]{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$. Here $`𝒪_Z`$ is the structure sheaf of $`Z`$ endowed with the reduced scheme structure. Let

$$M^{}MM^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}$$

be a distinguished triangle with $`M^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{<0}(𝒪_X)`$ and $`M^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{0}(𝒪_X)`$. Then one has $`\mathrm{Supp}(M^{\prime \prime })Z`$, and hence $`M^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }^a}(M^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^a(𝒪_X)`$, which implies $`M^{}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^a(𝒪_X)`$. The exact sequence $`0H^a(M^{})𝒪_Z`$, along with $`\mathrm{Supp}(H^a(M^{}))\mathrm{\Phi }^{a+1}`$, implies that $`H^a(M^{})=0`$. Hence one has $`M^{}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{>a}(𝒪_X)`$. On the other hand, one has the exact sequence

$$_S^{a+1}(M^{})_S^{a+1}(M)_S^{a+1}(M^{\prime \prime }).$$

Since $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(M^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^b(𝒪_X)`$, one has $`_S^{a+1}(M^{\prime \prime })=0`$. Since $`M^{}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^{>a}(𝒪_X)`$, one has $`_S^{a+1}(M^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(H^{a+1}(M^{}))`$, which is a coherent $`𝒪_X`$-module. Hence $`_S^{a+1}(M)=_S^1(𝒪_Z)`$ is a coherent $`𝒪_X`$-module. This is a contradiction. The last step follows from either Proposition 5.4 or the following easy lemma, whose proof is omitted. ∎

###### Lemma 5.10.

Let $`A`$ be a $`1`$-dimensional Noetherian local ring with a maximal ideal $`𝔪`$. Then $`H_𝔪^1(A)`$ is not a finitely generated $`A`$-module.

## 6. t-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$

In the sequel, we shall treat the case $`𝒜=𝒟`$. Let $`X`$ be an algebraic manifold over a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`0`$, i.e. a quasi-compact separated scheme smooth over $`k`$. Let $`𝒟_X`$ be the sheaf of differential operators on $`X`$. Let us denote by $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ the derived category of bounded complexes of $`𝒟_X`$-modules with quasi-coherent cohomologies. Let us denote by $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ the full subcategories of $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ consisting of bounded complexes with coherent, holonomic, regular holonomic $`𝒟_X`$-modules as cohomologies, respectively. For a morphism $`f:XY`$ of algebraic manifolds, we denote by $`𝔻f^{}:\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_Y)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ and $`𝔻f_{}:\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_Y)`$ the inverse image and the direct image functors (see e.g. ). Note that they respect $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^\mathrm{b}`$.

Let us define a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ as follows.

(6.3) $`\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\hfill & =\left\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X);\mathrm{Supp}(H^n(M))𝔖^n\text{ for every }n\right\},\hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\hfill & =\left\{M\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X);\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝔖^n}(M)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^n(𝒟_X)\text{ for every }n\right\}.\hfill \end{array}`$
It is indeed a $`t`$-structure by Theorem 3.5. Let $`𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}={}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X){}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$ be its heart.

We note that $`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X))`$ is not a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ (when $`dimX>1`$), as seen in the following example.

###### Example 6.1.

Set $`X=\mathrm{Spec}([x,y])`$ and $`Y=\mathrm{Spec}([t])`$ with indeterminates $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`t`$. Set $`t=f(x,y)\mathrm{:=}xy:XY`$. Set $`\mathrm{:=}𝒟_X/𝒟_X(x_xy_y)`$ and $`𝒩\mathrm{:=}𝒟_f`$. Note that $`𝒩𝒪_X_{𝒪_Y}𝒟_Y=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}𝒪_Xv_n`$ with $`v_n=\mathrm{𝟏}_{XY}_t^n`$ as an $`𝒪_X`$-module. The defining relations of $`\{v_n\}_{n_0}`$ as a $`𝒟_X`$-module are

$$_xv_n=yv_{n+1}\text{ and }_yv_n=xv_{n+1}.$$

Hence $`𝒩𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}`$. One has a morphism $`𝒩`$ by $`1\mathrm{mod}𝒟_X(x_xy_y)v_0`$. Set $`E=^{_{>0}}=\underset{n_{>0}}{}w_n`$. Then one has $`_{\{0\}|X}_{}E[2]𝒞_{\mathrm{qc}}`$. There is an exact sequence

$$0𝒩\stackrel{𝑔}{}_{\{0\}|X}_{}E0$$

in $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒟_X)`$. Here $`g`$ is given by

$`g(v_n)={\displaystyle \underset{1kn}{}}(1)^{nk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(nk)!}}(_x_y)^{nk}\delta w_k,`$
where $`\delta _{\{0\}|X}`$ is the generator with the defining relations $`x\delta =y\delta =0`$. Hence one has a distinguished triangle $`_{\{0\}|X}_{}E[2][1]𝒩\stackrel{+1}{}`$. Thus we obtain

$`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}H_{}^{n}()=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{\{0\}|X}_{}E[2]\hfill & \text{for }n=1\text{,}\hfill \\ 𝒩\hfill & \text{for }n=0\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }n1\text{}0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
Since $`_{\{0\}|X}_{}E`$ is not coherent, $`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X))`$ is not a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{coh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$. Note that one has $`_{𝔖^1}^0()=0`$ and $`_{𝔖^2}^1()_{\{0\}|X}_{}E`$.

Let us denote by $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{:=}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{:=}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^{0}(𝒟_X)\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$. Similarly we define $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$.

###### Theorem 6.2.

$`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X))`$ and $`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^{0}(𝒟_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^{0}(𝒟_X))`$ are a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, respectively.

###### Proof.

In order to show that $`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X))`$ is a $`t`$-structure on $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, it is enough to show that, for any any $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, there exists a distinguished triangle $`^{}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}`$ with $`^{}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{<0}(𝒟_X)`$ and $`^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$.

Let us show this by the induction on the codimension $`d`$ of $`S\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{Supp}()`$. One has $`\tau ^{<d}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{<0}(𝒟_X)`$. By the distinguished triangle $`\tau ^{<d}\tau ^d\stackrel{+1}{}`$, we may assume that $`\tau ^d`$ by Lemma 2.1.

Let $`S_0`$ be a $`d`$-codimensional smooth open subset of $`S`$ such that $`S_1\mathrm{:=}SS_0`$ is of codimension $`>d`$. Set $`U\mathrm{:=}XS_1`$. Then one has $`S_0=US`$. Let $`j:UX`$ and $`i:S_0U`$ be the open embedding and the closed embedding, respectively. Then there exists $`𝒩\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^d(𝒟_{S_0})`$ such that $`|_U`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔻i_{}𝒩`$. By shrinking $`S_0`$ if necessary, we may assume that the cohomologies of $`𝒩`$ are locally free $`𝒪_{S_0}`$-modules. Hence $`𝔻i_{}𝒩`$ belongs to $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_U)`$. Hence $`^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{R}j_{}𝔻i_{}𝒩`$ belongs to $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$ by Lemma 3.7. Let us consider a distinguished triangle

$$^{}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}.$$

Since $`\mathrm{Supp}(^{})S_1`$, the codimension of $`\mathrm{Supp}(^{})`$ is greater than $`d`$. Then the induction proceeds by Lemma 2.1.

The regular holonomic case is proved similarly, because the regular holonomicity is also preserved by the direct image functors. ∎

###### Remark 6.3.

By Proposition 3.8, $`U{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒟_U){}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{}^{0}(𝒟_U)`$ is a stack on $`X`$ for $`=\mathrm{qc}`$, $`\mathrm{hol}`$, $`\mathrm{rh}`$.

For a closed point $`xX`$, let us denote by $`_{x|X}`$ the regular holonomic $`𝒟_X`$-module $`_{\{x\}}^{dimX}(𝒪_X)`$.

###### Proposition 6.4.

For $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, the following conditions are equivalent.

1. $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$.
2. $``$ is of flat dimension $`0`$ as a complex of $`𝒪_X`$-modules.
3. For any closed subset $`Z`$ of $`X`$, one has $`_Z^i()=0`$ for any $`i<\mathrm{codim}Z`$.
4. For any locally closed subset $`Z`$ of $`X`$, one has $`_Z^i()=0`$ for any $`i<\mathrm{codim}Z`$.
5. $`\mathrm{Ext}_{𝒟_X}^i(_{x|X},)=0`$ for any closed point $`xX`$ and $`i<dimX`$.
6. $`H^i(𝐤_x\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}})=0`$ for any closed point $`xX`$ and $`i<0`$. Here $`𝐤_x`$ is the sheaf $`𝒪_X/𝔪_x`$ with the ideal $`𝔪_x`$ of functions vanishing at $`x`$.

###### Proof.

The equivalence of (i)—(iv) are evident. Since $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒟_X}(_{x|X},)𝐤_x\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}\left[dimX\right]`$, the implication (i)$``$ (v) and the equivalence (v)$``$(vi) are evident.

It remains to prove (vi)$``$ (i). Let us assume that $``$ satisfies (vi). Let us show $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$ by the induction on the codimension $`d`$ of $`S\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{Supp}()`$. Let $`S_0`$ be a $`d`$-codimensional smooth open subset of $`S`$ such that $`S_1\mathrm{:=}SS_0`$ is of codimension $`>d`$. Let $`i:S_0X`$ be the inclusion. Then there exists $`𝒩\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_{S_0})`$ such that $``$ is isomorphic to $`𝔻i_{}𝒩`$ on a neighborhood of $`S_0`$. By shrinking $`S_0`$ if necessary, we may assume that the cohomologies of $`𝒩`$ are locally free $`𝒪_{S_0}`$-modules. Then $`𝐤_x_{𝒪_{S_0}}𝒩𝐤_x_{𝒪_X}[d]`$, and hence one has $`H^k(𝒩)_x=0`$ for any $`k<d`$ and any closed point $`x`$ of $`S_0`$. Therefore, $`𝒩\mathrm{D}^d(𝒟_{S_0})`$ and $`^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{:=}𝔻i_{}𝒩\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S_0}`$ belongs to $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$. Consider a distinguished triangle

$$^{}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}.$$

The exact sequence $`H^{k1}(𝐤_x\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}^{\prime \prime })H^k\left(𝐤_x\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}^{}\right)H^k\left(𝐤_x\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}\right)`$ implies that $`H^k(𝐤_x\underset{𝒪_X}{\overset{𝕃}{}}^{})=0`$ for $`k<0`$. Since $`\mathrm{codim}\mathrm{Supp}(^{})>d`$, the induction hypothesis implies that $`^{}{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$. Hence one concludes that $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{hol}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$. ∎

Let us assume that the base field $`k`$ is the complex number field $``$, and let us denote by $`X_{\mathrm{an}}`$ the associated complex manifold. Let us denote by $`\mathrm{D}_c^\mathrm{b}(_{X_{\mathrm{an}}})`$ the derived category of bounded complexes of $`_{X_{\mathrm{an}}}`$-modules with constructible cohomologies.

###### Theorem 6.5.

The equivalence of triangulated categories

$$\mathrm{Sol}_X\mathrm{:=}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{an}}}):\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^b(𝒟_X)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{D}_c^\mathrm{b}(_{X_{\mathrm{an}}})^{\mathrm{op}}$$

sends the $`t`$-structure $`({}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^{0}(𝒟_X),{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^{0}(𝒟_X))`$ to $`(\mathrm{D}_c^0(_{X_{\mathrm{an}}})^{\mathrm{op}},\mathrm{D}_c^0(_{X_{\mathrm{an}}})^{\mathrm{op}})`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{an}}})`$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories, it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^b(𝒟_X)`$ belongs to $`{}_{}{}^{𝔖}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{rh}}^{0}(𝒟_X)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{an}}})`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{D}_c^0(_{X_{\mathrm{an}}})`$. This immediately follows from Proposition 6.4 and

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{an}}})_x\mathrm{Hom}_{}(_x_{𝒪_X},).$$

## 7. Proof of Lemma 3.1

In this section, we give a proof of Lemma 3.1.

###### Lemma 7.1.

Let $``$ be a coherent $`𝒜`$-module, and $`𝒩`$ a (not necessarily coherent) $`𝒜`$-submodule of $``$, and $`Z`$ a closed subset of $`X`$. Then, for the generic point $`\xi `$ of any irreducible component of $`Z`$, there exist a coherent $`𝒜`$-submodule $``$ of $``$ and an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\xi `$ such that

$$𝒩|_U=(𝒩_{XZ}+)|_U.$$

###### Proof.

Assume first that $`X`$ is affine. Set $`R=𝒪_X(X)`$, $`A=𝒜(X)`$, $`M=(X)`$. Let $`LM`$ be the inverse image of $`𝒩_\xi `$ by the morphism $`M_\xi `$. Then $`L`$ is a finitely generated $`A`$-module. Let $``$ be the coherent $`𝒜`$-module associated with $`L`$: $`\mathrm{:=}𝒜_AL𝒪_X_RL`$. Then one has $`𝒩_\xi =_\xi `$. Hence there exists an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\xi `$ such that $`|_U𝒩|_U`$. We may assume further that $`UZ=U\overline{\{\xi \}}`$. Let us show that $`𝒩|_U=(𝒩_{XZ}+)|_U`$. It is evident that the last member is contained in the first. We shall prove the opposite inclusion. Let $`V`$ be an affine open subset contained in $`U`$. Then $`(V)=𝒪_X(V)_RM`$. Let $`N_V`$ be the inverse image of $`𝒩(V)`$ by the morphism $`M(V)`$. Then one has $`𝒩(V)=𝒪_X(V)_RN_V`$.

Assume first $`\xi V`$. Then by the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}N_V& & 𝒩(V)& & 𝒩_\xi \\ & & & & & & \\ M& & (V)& & _\xi \end{array}$$

$`N_V`$ is contained in $`L`$. Hence $`𝒩(V)𝒪_X(V)_RN_V𝒪_X(V)_RL(V)`$. If $`\xi `$ is not contained in $`V`$, then one has $`VXZ`$, and hence $`𝒩(V)(𝒩_{XZ})(V)`$. Hence one obtains $`𝒩|_U(𝒩_{XZ}+)|_U`$.

In the general case, let us take an affine open subset $`W`$ of $`X`$ containing $`\xi `$. Then it is enough to remark that any coherent $`𝒜|_W`$-submodule of $`|_W`$ can be extended to a coherent $`𝒜`$-submodule of $``$. Note that a quasi-coherent $`𝒜`$-submodule of a coherent $`𝒜`$-module is coherent. ∎

The next lemma is not used in this paper.

###### Lemma 7.2.

Let $``$ be a coherent $`𝒜`$-module, and $`𝒩`$ a (not necessarily coherent) $`𝒜`$-submodule of $``$. Then, there exist finite families of open subsets $`U_i`$ of $`X`$ and coherent $`𝒜`$-submodules $`_i`$ of $``$ such that

$$𝒩=\underset{i}{}(_i)_{U_i}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒲`$ be the set of open subsets $`W`$ of $`X`$ such that there exist finite families of open subsets $`U_i`$ of $`W`$ and coherent $`𝒜`$-submodules $`_i`$ of $``$ such that $`𝒩|_W=(_i(_i)_{U_i})|_W`$. Since $`X`$ is Noetherian, $`𝒲`$ has a maximal element. Let $`W`$ be such a maximal element. Assuming that $`WX`$, let us derive a contradiction. Let $`\xi `$ be the generic point of an irreducible component of $`XW`$. Then by Lemma 7.1, there exist an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\xi `$ and a coherent $`𝒜`$-submodule $``$ such that $`𝒩|_U=(𝒩_W+)|_U`$. Hence one has $`𝒩|_{WU}=\left(_i(_i)_{U_i}+_U\right)|_{WU}`$. This contradicts the choice of $`W`$. ∎

The following lemma, an analogue of , is a corollary of Lemma 7.1,

###### Lemma 7.3.

Let $``$ be an $`𝒜`$-module. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

1. $``$ is an injective $`𝒜`$-module.
2. For any coherent $`𝒜`$-module $``$, one has $`xt_𝒜^1(,)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_𝒜(,)`$ is a flabby sheaf.

###### Proof.

(i)$``$(ii) is well-known. Let us show (ii)$``$(i). In order to see that $``$ is injective, it is enough to show that for any left ideal $``$ of $`𝒜`$ with $`𝒥𝒜`$ and a morphism $`\phi :`$, there exists a left ideal $`^{}`$ strictly containing $``$ such that $`\phi `$ extends to a morphism $`^{}`$. Let $`Z=\mathrm{Supp}(𝒜/)\mathrm{}`$, and let $`\xi `$ be the generic point of an irreducible component of $`Z`$. Then by Lemma 7.1, there exist a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\xi `$ and a coherent left ideal $`𝒥`$ of $`𝒜`$ such that $`|_U=(𝒜_{XZ}+𝒥)|_U`$. Set $`^{}=+𝒜_U`$. The exact sequence $`0^{}(𝒜/𝒥)_{ZU}0`$ induces an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝒜(^{},)\mathrm{Hom}_𝒜(,)\mathrm{Ext}_𝒜^1((𝒜/𝒥)_{ZU},).$$

Here the last term vanishes by the assumptions:

$`\mathrm{Ext}_𝒜^1((𝒜/𝒥)_{ZU},)`$ $`=`$ $`H_{ZU}^1(U;\mathrm{R}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_𝒜(𝒜/𝒥,))`$
$`=`$ $`H_{ZU}^1(U;\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}_𝒜(𝒜/𝒥,))=0.`$
Therefore, the morphism $`\phi :`$ extends to a morphism $`^{}`$. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\{_i\}_{iI}`$ be a filtrant inductive family of injective $`𝒜`$-modules, and $`=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_i_i`$. For any coherent $`𝒜`$-module $``$, one has

$$xt_𝒜^k(,)\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_ixt_𝒜^k(,_i),$$

and the condition (ii) in the lemma above is satisfied. Note that any filtrant inductive limit of flabby sheaves on a Noetherian scheme is flabby. ∎

###### Remark 7.4.

Let $``$, $`𝒩`$ be coherent $`𝒜`$-modules, and $`Z`$ a closed subset of $`X`$. When $`𝒜`$ is commutative, an injective object of $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$ is an injective object of $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒜)`$, and $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(,\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(𝒩)[n])`$ is calculated by $`H^n(\mathrm{Hom}_𝒜(,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(^{})))`$ for an injective resolution $`^{}`$ of $`𝒩`$ in $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$. But it is not true in general. Any injective object of $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$ is a flabby sheaf (cf. Reamark 3.2), and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(^{})`$ certainly calculates $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(𝒩)`$. But $`^{}`$ is not necessarily a complex of injective objects of $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒜)`$, and the functor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ does not send injective objects of $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$ to injective objects of $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$.

For example, take $`X=\mathrm{Spec}([x])`$, $`𝒜=𝒟_X`$ and $`=𝒟_X/𝒟_X_x`$, $`Z=\{0\}`$. Then one has by Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝒜(,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(𝒩))\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_{n>0}\mathrm{Hom}_𝒜(𝒟_X/(𝒟_X_x+𝒟_Xx^n),𝒩)=0$$

for any $`𝒩\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒜)`$, but one has $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒜)}(,\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z()[2])`$.


text:
# IS PRIMORDIAL 4HE TRULY FROM BIG BANG ?

## Abstract

Population III stars are now believed to contribute to the observed Near Infrared Background (NIRB) and heavy element pollution of the intergalactic medium. Here we show that a Pop III contribution to the primordial 4He abundance consistent with NIRB constraints, might mask a lower value for the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) 4He abundance.

As observations start to explore cosmic epochs close to the formation of the first, so-called Population III (Pop III) stars, theoretical models provide increasingly detailed predictions on the properties and evolution of these objects. Bond, Carr & Arnett (1983) and Carr (1994), discussed a possible contribution of Pop III stars to the primordial 4He mass fraction (Yp). The observational data at that time did not allow to check the validity of their hypothesis. Current experiments are able to determine Yp with a precision $`<`$ 1% allowing further investigations of the problem. Such experiments are based on high signal-to-noise ratio spectra of a class of star-forming galaxies called Blue Compact Dwarf (BCD) galaxies. These are low-luminosity ($`M_B18`$) systems undergoing an intense burst of star formation occurring in a very compact region (less than 1 kpc) characterized by a blue color and a HII region-like emission-line optical spectrum, which dominates the galactic light. BCDs are among the most metal-deficient gas-rich galaxies known. Their gas has not been processed through many generation of stars, and thus best approximates the pristine primordial composition. Thus, Yp can be derived accurately with only a small correction for helium produced in stars. Moreover, the theory of nebular emission is understood well enough to convert 4He emission-line strengths into abundances with the desired accuracy. Yp is generally determined \[Peimbert & Torres-Peimbert 1974\] by linear extrapolation of the Y$``$ O/H correlation to O/H=0, where Y and O/H, are respectively the 4He mass fraction and the oxygen abundance relative to hydrogen of a sample of dwarf irregular and BCD galaxies. Based on a relatively large sample of 45 BCDs, Izotov & Thuan (1998) found Y$`{}_{p,IT}{}^{}=0.2443\pm 0.0015`$ and a scaling $`\text{d}\mathrm{Y}/\text{d}(\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H})=45\pm 19`$.

The Pop III star comoving density as a function of redshift, $`\rho _{}(z)`$, is given by

$$\rho _{}(z)=f_{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}_{M_{min}(z)}^{\mathrm{}}n(M_h,z)M_h\text{d}M_h,$$
(1)
where $`n(M_h,z)`$ is the comoving number density of dark matter halos of mass $`M_h`$ at redshift $`z`$ given by the Press & Schechter formalism \[Press & Schechter 1974\]; the integral gives the dark matter mass per unit volume contained in dark matter halos with mass greater than $`M_{min}(z)`$, where $`M_{min}`$ (computed by Fuller & Couchman (2000)) is a cutoff mass below which halos cannot form stars due to the lack of cooling. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ are the total matter and baryon density111 We adopt the ‘concordance’ model values for the cosmological parameters: $`h=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.038`$, $`\sigma _8=0.9`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.21`$, where $`h`$ is the dimensionless Hubble constant, $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 in units of the critical density $`\rho _c=3H_0^2/8\pi G`$. The ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ converts the integral into baryonic mass which is then turned into stars with an efficiency $`f_{}`$. The latter is constrained by the contribution of the redshifted light of Pop III stars to the NIRB. The observational data in the NIR (see e.g. Hauser & Dwek (2001) and references therein) are well fitted by a model in which the contribution from Pop III stars is added to the “normal” galaxy background light \[Salvaterra & Ferrara 2002\], where the Pop III contribution is given by

$$I(\nu _0,z_0)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_{z_0}^{\mathrm{}}l_\nu (z,\varphi )\rho _{}(z)e^{\tau _{eff}(\nu _0,z_0,z)}\frac{dl}{dz}𝑑z,$$
(2)
with $`l_\nu (z,\varphi )`$ being the specific luminosity of the population at redshift $`z`$, computed using the spectra for metal-free stars obtained by Schaerer (2002), $`\varphi `$ is the initial mass function (IMF), $`\nu =\nu _0(1+z)/(1+z_0)`$, $`\tau _{eff}(\nu _0,z_0,z)`$ is the effective optical depth at $`\nu _0`$ of the IGM between redshift $`z_0`$ and $`z`$, and $`dl/dz`$ is the proper line element. The Pop III star formation efficiency required to account for the observed NIRB depends essentially only on IMF for those objects, the redshift $`z_{end}`$ at which the formation of Pop III stars ends being constrained to be $`z_{end}8.8`$ by the J band data \[Salvaterra & Ferrara 2002\]. In addition to the NIRB, an early star formation may contribute to the metal enrichment of the intergalactic medium (IGM). Although the enrichment history of the IGM at high redshift is very uncertain, mainly depending on the metal escape fraction from galaxies and their actual spatial distribution, it sounds reasonable to adopt the mean Ly$`\alpha `$ forest metallicity as a ‘reliable’ first-order estimate of the mean IGM metallicity. Ly$`\alpha `$ forest QSO absorption line experiments indicate a mean IGM metallicity of $`\mathrm{log}(Z_{IGM}/Z_{})=2.5\pm 0.5`$ at $`z3`$ (Davé et al. 1998, Telfer et al. 2002). Salvaterra & Ferrara (2002) have shown that this constraint is not exceeded by first stars if either \[i\] their primordial Initial Mass Function is a Salpeter one ($`\varphi (M)M^{2.35}`$), in which pair instability supernovae (SNγγ, i.e. progenitor stars with mass in the range 130-260 $`M_{}`$ \[Heger & Woosley 2002\]) are the dominant sources of heavy elements, or \[ii\] only stars with masses in excess of 260 $`M_{}`$ are formed, that lock their nucleosynthetic products into a very massive black hole (VMBH) remnant \[Schneider et al. 2002\]. In the first case, the NIRB is well fitted with $`f_{}=0.534`$ and $`z_{end}=8.788`$. For the second case, although the model seems to overproduce the VMBH density to respect of the estimate density of super massive black hole (SMBH) (Merritt & Ferrarese 2001), at the moment there is no strong reason to reject this model, since the connection between VMBHs and SMBHs is not clear. We adopted here $`\varphi (M)=\delta (1000M_{})`$ and the NIR data are reproduced with $`f_{}=0.043`$ and $`z_{end}=8.830`$; we will use these $`z_{end}`$ values in the following. Note that, as stars more massive than about $`300M_{}`$ have virtually the same spectrum, the $`\delta `$-function distribution does not represent an unrealistic assumption \[Bromm, Kudritzki & Loeb 2001\]. These two best fit models to the NIRB data are shown in Figure 1. Obviously, the NIRB fraction accounted for by PopIII stars is dircetly proportional to $`f_{}`$; as a consequence the same linear dependence is found for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Y}_p`$, as it is clear from eq. 3 below and eq. 1.

The constraints on the IMF obtained from this fit can then be used to estimate the contribution of Pop III stars to 4He primordial abundance. This is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Y}_p(\varphi ,z)=f_{He}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(\varphi ,z)/\mathrm{\Omega }_b$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(z)=\rho _{}/\rho _c`$; $`f_{He}`$ is the 4He fraction of the stellar mass ejected via supernova explosions and/or through mass-loss in a radiatively-driven wind (although Kudritzki (2002), has hinted that winds might not be effective at $`Z=0`$, recent results show that winds can take place even in metal-free stars; Lentz, Hauschildt, Aufdenberg & Baron, in preparation); its value depends on the adopted IMF, $`\varphi `$. The 4He produced by SNγγ explosions of Pop III stars has been computed by Heger & Woosley (2002). Stars with mass above 260 $`M_{}`$ are likely to end up in VMBHs without 4He ejection. On the other hand, according to very recent calculations \[Marigo, Chiosi & Kudritzki 2002\], wind mass-loss is significant only for very massive objects (750-1000 $`M_{}`$). For a 1000 $`M_{}`$ non rotating star, 17.33% (0.03%) of the initial mass is ejected via mass-loss as helium (oxygen) during the stellar lifetime. A small amount of carbon and nitrogen is ejected as well. If rotation is taken into account the percentages are 16.97% (He) and 0.15% (O). Pulsational instabilities may not have sufficient time to drive appreciable mass-loss in metal free stars \[Baraffe, Heger & Woosley 2001\].

We calculate the contribution of Pop III stars to the 4He abundance according to eq. (3) down to redshift $`z_{end}`$ at which the formation of Pop III stars ends. For the Salpeter IMF (case \[i\] above) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Y}_p`$ is quite small, $`2\times 10^6`$ if mass-loss is not considered. This value doubles if one accounts for He ejected from 750-1000 $`M_{}`$ stars via wind losses; inclusion of rotation does not change these conclusions. In case \[ii\] there is no contribution from SNγγ, since 1000 $`M_{}`$ stars fall above the SNγγ progenitor range; as already mentioned, mass-loss in a wind is instead quite efficient at ejecting 4He. The resulting contribution is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Y}_p=3.191\times 10^3`$ (3.258$`\times 10^3`$) in the rotating (non-rotating) case. Moreover, the gas is also enriched in oxygen222Following common notation, we use square brackets to express values in units of solar abundance, \[O/H\]=log(O/H) – log(O/H), and use (O/H)$`{}_{}{}^{}=5\times 10^4`$, where (O/H) is the abundance ratio of the two species by number. to \[O/H\]$`=2.33(3.02)`$, leading to a mean IGM metallicity of $`\mathrm{log}(Z/Z_{})=2.52(3.15)`$. In Figure 2 we show the 4He data points from the Izotov & Thuan sample \[Izotov & Thuan 1998\] from which we have subtracted the best fit primordial value, Yp,IT. Our results for the non-rotating and rotating cases are also indicated in the Figure by the square and triangle points. Both points fall beyond the 1$`\sigma `$ error line (and the non-rotating one beyond 2$`\sigma `$). Hence the conclusion is that a measure of the 4He primordial abundance extrapolated to zero metallicity from the values of currently sampled \[O/H\]$`>1.6`$ would include the contribution from the very first generation of stars and therefore overestimate the amount of ‘truly’ primordial, BBN 4He. As a result, a correct determination of BBN 4He can only be made by sampling a strictly metal-free gas: any metal-enriched gas will already bear the signature of the 4He production of Pop III stars. A similar conclusion, although based on totally different arguments, has been suggested in the past \[Mathews, Boyd & Fuller 1993\]. We note that the exact horizontal position of the theoretical points is affected by the systematic uncertainty introduced by the implicit assumption made of a homogeneous distribution of the stellar nucleosynthetic products; such error is difficult to estimate. In general, as observations are pushed to lower metallicity gas, we expect the scattering in the data to increase as a result of the inhomogeneous distribution of oxygen, which is presumably enhanced close to the most actively star forming regions of the universe. We reiterate that the value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p`$ here inferred has to be considered as an upper limit, since a broader IMF in the range 300-1000 $`M_{}`$ leads to a lower contribution.

The inferred value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Yp gives us a measure of the accuracy with which Yp can be measured though current observations of this type. In the most extreme case we can expect Y$`{}_{p}{}^{}=\mathrm{Y}_{p,IT}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Y}_p=0.24433.258\times 10^3=0.241`$. Is this low value at odd with BBN theory ? It is well known that there is a tension between theoretical BBN predictions and observed abundances, in the sense that the latter typically fall short, particularly for 4He and 7Li. The further decrease of 4He abundance suggested here would aggravate the discrepancy, a fact which should lead us to consider even more seriously non-standard BBN models. Similar arguments apply if one considers D and 4He data simultaneously: observations of high-$`z`$ QSO absorbers seem to suggest a low primordial deuterium abundance, implying high nucleon-to-baryon ratio and Yp values. The contribution from Pop III stars will instead tend to decrease Yp, a problem which would be exacerbated if we are to believe lower (with respect to the IT one) determinations of such quantity, Y$`{}_{p}{}^{}=0.234\pm 0.003`$, obtained by other groups \[Olive, Skillman & Steigman 1997\]. A lower Yp value would require a slower expansion of the radiation-dominated universe. This behavior is predicted by a class of so-called “extended quintessence” models, as a result of a decrease of the effective gravitational constant $`G`$. Obviously, there is a lot that we can learn from BBN element abundance measurements.

We thank E. Lentz, P. Marigo and their groups for providing results in advance of publication; R. Schneider, E. Skillman and M. Tosi for useful comments and discussions. This work was partially supported (AF) by the Research and Training Network ‘The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium’ set up by the European Community under the contract HPRN-CT2000-00126 RG29185. RS acknowledges the Italian MIUR for financial support.

Figure 1 Caption

Best fit results of the NIRB data \[Salvaterra & Ferrara 2002\]. Dotted line: Salpeter IMF $`z_{end}=8.788`$, $`f_{}=0.534`$. Solid line: $`\varphi =\delta (1000M_{})`$ $`z_{end}=8.83`$ $`f_{}=0.043`$. The small filled circles are the NIRS data \[Matsumoto et al. 2000\]. The open symbols are the DIRBE results: squares for Wright (2001), diamonds for Cambrésy et al. (2001), and circles for Gorjian et al.(2000). The big filled circle is the Kiso star count measurement. The errors are at 1$`\sigma `$ and for all the data the Kelsall’s model \[Kelsall et al. 1998\] for the zodiacal light is applied. The “normal” galaxy contribution is estimated from the Subaru Deep Field \[Totani et al. 2001\]. For $`\lambda >2.2`$ $`\mu `$m a zero contribution from normal galaxies to the NIRB is assumed.

Figure 2 Caption

Effect of Pop III stars on the 4He primordial abundance determination. The plot shows the 4He abundance, Y, to which the estimate by Izotov & Thuan, Yp,IT \[Izotov & Thuan 1998\] has been subtracted, as a function of the oxygen content of the galaxy. The triangle (square) represents the 4He abundance obtained taking into account the helium ejected via mass-loss from rotating (non-rotating) Pop III stars. The black dots are the data of the sample of Izotov & Thuan (1998). The solid line is the best fit relation Y – O/H and the dashed lines represent the corresponding 1$`\sigma `$ errors \[Izotov & Thuan 1998\].