Moduli Problems
The fundamental question of moduli theory is: how do we parametrize families of geometric objects? A moduli problem asks for a geometric space whose points correspond to isomorphism classes of a given type of object, and whose geometry reflects how these objects vary in families.
1. The Functor of Points Perspective
The modern approach to moduli theory begins with Grothendieck's functor of points. Rather than constructing a space directly, we define what it means for a family of objects to be parametrized by a given base scheme.
A moduli functor (or moduli problem) is a functor from the opposite category of -schemes to sets. For a scheme over , the set parametrizes families of objects over , considered up to a suitable equivalence relation.
More precisely, for a morphism of -schemes, the pullback map corresponds to pulling back families along .
A moduli functor is representable if there exists a scheme over and a natural isomorphism The scheme is called a fine moduli space for the problem, and the element corresponding to under the isomorphism is called the universal family.
2. Fine Moduli Spaces
When a fine moduli space exists, the situation is ideal: every family over any base is obtained by pulling back the universal family along a unique morphism .
If represents with universal family , then for any scheme and any family , there exists a unique morphism such that .
The projective space represents the functor The universal family is the tautological quotient .
The Grassmannian is a fine moduli space for the functor The universal family is the tautological quotient bundle of rank on .
The affine space is a fine moduli space for monic polynomials of degree : The universal polynomial is over .
3. Obstructions to Representability
Many natural moduli problems fail to be representable. The key obstruction is the existence of nontrivial automorphisms.
If a moduli functor is representable and the objects being parametrized have no nontrivial automorphisms (i.e., for each we have ), then representability is not obstructed by automorphisms. Conversely, if generic objects have nontrivial automorphisms, then is typically not representable.
Consider the moduli functor of elliptic curves (genus 1 curves with a marked point). Every elliptic curve has the automorphism (the inverse map), so . This functor is not representable by a scheme.
More precisely, if were represented by a scheme , then for any field , the set of -points would be in bijection with isomorphism classes of elliptic curves over . But one can construct a family that is locally trivial in the etale topology but not globally trivial, contradicting representability.
Let be a smooth projective curve. The functor is not representable because every line bundle has . However, if we rigidify by fixing a point and requiring a trivialization along , we obtain the representable Picard scheme .
4. Coarse Moduli Spaces
When representability fails, we can often find a weaker substitute.
A coarse moduli space for a moduli functor is a scheme together with a natural transformation such that:
- For every algebraically closed field , the map is a bijection.
- For any scheme and natural transformation , there exists a unique morphism such that .
The first condition says that closed points of are in bijection with isomorphism classes. The second condition says is the "best approximation" to a fine moduli space.
The affine line is a coarse moduli space for elliptic curves over algebraically closed fields. The -invariant provides the natural transformation. However, this is not a fine moduli space: there is no universal elliptic curve over .
Over a non-algebraically closed field , there can exist non-isomorphic elliptic curves with the same -invariant (twists), demonstrating the failure of the fine moduli property.
The coarse moduli space of smooth curves of genus exists as a quasi-projective variety of dimension . However, it is not a fine moduli space because:
- Curves can have nontrivial automorphisms (e.g., hyperelliptic involutions).
- The hyperelliptic locus in parametrizes curves with .
5. Rigidification and Level Structure
One approach to obtaining a fine moduli space is to add extra structure that kills automorphisms.
A level- structure on an abelian variety of dimension over a field (with ) is an isomorphism of group schemes, where is the -torsion subgroup.
For , the moduli functor of elliptic curves with full level- structure is representable by a smooth affine curve over . The key point: a level- structure with has no nontrivial automorphisms compatible with it, since acts nontrivially on for .
The Hilbert scheme is a fine moduli space for closed subschemes of with Hilbert polynomial . This works because closed subschemes (as opposed to abstract varieties) have no nontrivial automorphisms: they are rigidified by their embedding.
6. Groupoid-Valued Functors and Stacks
The correct framework for moduli problems with automorphisms is to keep track of the automorphisms rather than quotienting them out.
A groupoid-valued moduli functor (or category fibered in groupoids) is a functor where is the groupoid of families over (objects are families, morphisms are isomorphisms of families). When this satisfies descent (effective descent for morphisms and objects), it is a stack.
The stack assigns to a scheme the groupoid of rank- vector bundles on . This is a stack for the fpqc topology. For a vector bundle , the automorphism group is , which is never trivial, so is not representable.
The coarse moduli space is a single point (since all vector bundles of rank over are isomorphic), which is essentially useless. The stack, however, captures the rich geometry.
For genus 2 curves, every curve is hyperelliptic, so . The stack is a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack of dimension 3. The coarse moduli space has quotient singularities at points corresponding to curves with extra automorphisms (e.g., the curve has , contributing a -singularity to ).
7. Equivalence Relations and Quotient Problems
Given a scheme with an action of a group scheme , the quotient moduli problem is the functor This is the functor of points of the quotient stack .
Consider with the -action given by weights : The quotient stack is the stacky weighted projective space . When all , this is (which is a scheme). For general weights, the coarse moduli space is the usual weighted projective space, which may have quotient singularities.
8. Families, Base Change, and Descent
A family of objects parametrized by in a moduli problem is an element . For a morphism , the pullback family is .
A family of conics in parametrized by is a closed subscheme flat over with fibers being conics. The moduli space is (the space of homogeneous quadratic forms in 3 variables up to scalar). Over the point , the fiber is the conic .
9. Summary of Moduli Hierarchy
For a moduli problem , the possible outcomes form a hierarchy:
- Fine moduli space (representable by a scheme): Best case. Universal family exists. Requires no automorphisms.
- Fine moduli algebraic space: Representable by an algebraic space. Slightly weaker.
- Deligne-Mumford stack: Objects have finite, reduced automorphism groups. Etale local charts.
- Artin (algebraic) stack: Objects may have positive-dimensional automorphism groups. Smooth local charts.
- Coarse moduli space: Always a weaker substitute. Points correspond to isomorphism classes, but no universal family.
- Higher stack / derived stack: Needed for derived or higher-categorical enhancements.
| Problem | Type | Reason | |---------|------|--------| | | Fine moduli scheme | No automorphisms (subschemes) | | | Fine moduli scheme | No automorphisms (quotients) | | () | DM stack | Finite automorphism groups | | | DM stack | | | | Artin stack | | | | Artin stack | |