STRUCTURE RESULTS FOR TORUS FIXED LOCI

JAROD ALPER AND FELIX JANDA

Abstract. Motivated by localization theorems on moduli spaces, we prove a

structural classification of Deligne–Mumford stacks with an action of a torus
arXiv:2402.10823v1 [math.AG] 16 Feb 2024

where the induced action on the coarse moduli space is trivial. We also estab-
lish a general local structure theorem for morphisms of algebraic stacks.

1. Introduction
The main goal of this paper is to provide a description of Deligne–Mumford
stacks X with a torus action where the induced action on the coarse moduli space
Xcms is trivial. Such actions arise naturally in moduli theory as the fixed locus
of a torus action on a Deligne–Mumford stack (see Remark 1.6). The motivation
for this paper is that an explicit understanding of such actions could be useful for
applications of localization theorems.
A prototypical example is the non-trivial Gm -action on Bµr arising from the
r
Kummer sequence 0 → µr → T = Gm − → Gm → 0: the induced map Bµr → BT
is a Gm -torsor as it’s the base change of Spec k → BGm . The main theorem below
states essentially that every Gm -action on a Deligne–Mumford stack X, which is
trivial on Xcms , is built from this nontrivial action on Bµr for some r.
1.1. The main theorem. We work over an algebraically closed field k.
Theorem 1.1. Let X = [X/Gnm ] → BGnm be a separated, finite type, and relatively
tame Deligne–Mumford morphism of algebraic stacks (i.e., X is a separated, finite
type, and tame Deligne–Mumford stack). Assume that X is reduced and connected,
and that the Gnm -action on the coarse moduli space Xcms of X is trivial.
(1) There is a diagonalizable group µr := µr1 × · · · × µrn for a unique tuple
r = (r1 , . . . , rn ) of integers with r1 |r2 | · · · |rn and a central closed subgroup
µr,X ⊂ IX /BGnm of the relative inertia stack restricting to a subgroup µr,X ⊂ IX
such that the Gnm -action on X descends to a trivial Gnm -action on the Deligne–
Mumford stack Y := X( µr,X and there is a factorization
X PP // X( µr,X ∼ = Y × BGnm
PPP
PPP
PPP
PPP
'' 
Xcms × BGnm
which satisfies the following universal property: if X → Y ′ × BGnm → Xcms ×
BGnm is another factorization where Y ′ is a Deligne–Mumford stack, then there
is a morphism g : Y → Y ′ unique up to unique isomorphism fitting in the
diagram
X ■ // Y × BGn // Xcms × BGn
■■ ✤ m 77 m
■■
■■ ✤ g×id ♥♥ ♥♥♥
♥
■■ ✤ ♥♥♥
■$$  ♥♥♥
Y ′ × BGnm .
Date: February 19, 2024.
1
2 J. ALPER AND F. JANDA

(2) Consider the exact sequence 1 → µr → T → Gnm → 1 where T = Gnm → Gnm

is defined by (t1 , . . . , tn ) 7→ (tr11 , . . . , trnn ), and let BT → BGnm be the induced
µr -gerbe. The µr × µr -gerbe X × BT → Y × BGnm factors as
X × BT → X → Y × BGnm .
In particular, X ∼
= p∗1 X ∧µr p∗2 BT over Y × BGnm .
(3) There is a central closed fppf subgroup T × X ⊂ IX and a factorization

X ❖❖ // X( µr,X ∼
= Y × BGnm
❖❖❖
❖❖❖
❖❖❖ p1
❖❖❖
'' 
X( T ∼ =Y

and X( T is identified with the rigidification (X( µr,X )( Gnm by Gnm = T /µr .
Furthermore, X → Y is the T -gerbe associated to the µr -gerbe X → Y with
respect to the canonical inclusion of group schemes µr ⊂ T .

1.2. Special cases and our proof strategy. Given the technical nature of the
statement and the subtleties arising from torus actions on Deligne–Mumford stack,
we will try to unpack the conclusion in a series of remarks and examples.
Remark 1.2 (Torus equivariant interpretation). Part (1) asserts that Y is the
largest Deligne–Mumford stack with trivial Gnm -action factoring Gnm -equivariantly
as X → Y = X( µr,X → Xcms . Note that there is an identification Xcms ∼ = Ycms
of coarse moduli spaces. Note also that the assumption that the Gnm -action on
Xcms is trivial translates to the condition that the relative coarse moduli space of
X → BGnm is Xcms × BGnm .
For part (2), let Xtriv be the µr -gerbe over Y which is isomorphic to X as
Deligne–Mumford stacks over Y but is given the trivial Gnm -action. Then the Gnm -
equivariant µr -gerbe X → Y is obtained from the possibly non-trivial µr -gerbe
Xtriv → Y with trivial Gnm -action by twisting by the trivial µr -gerbe Bµr,Y → Y
with non-trivial Gnm -action, i.e. there is a Gnm -equivariant isomorphism of µr -gerbes
X∼
= Xtriv ∧µr Bµr,Y .
While the Gnm -action on X may be non-trivial, part (2) also asserts that there is a
smallest integer r such that the action becomes trivial after the reparameterization
T = Gnm → Gnm defined by (t1 , . . . , tn ) 7→ (tr11 , . . . , trnn ).
Example 1.3 (Case of a classifying stack). The crucial example—both to un-
derstand the conclusion of the main theorem and its proof—is a Gnm -action on a
classifying stack X = BG of a finite group G. Such an action corresponds to an
extension
(1.1) 1 → G → Γ → Gnm → 1
of algebraic groups (see Example 3.2) where X = [X/Gnm] = BΓ. We let T =
Γ0 ⊂ Γ be the identity component. As T is isomorphic to Gnm (see §4.1), the
intersection T ∩ G is isomorphic to µr for a unique tuple of integers r = (r1 , . . . , rn )
with r1 | · · · |rn . By Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, T and µr are central in Γ, and there
is an identification Γ ∼ = G × Gnm where G := G/µr and Γ := Γ/µr . Part (1) of
Theorem 1.1 is the identifications
X( µr ∼
= BΓ ∼
= BG × BGnm
| {z }
Y ×BGn
m
 STRUCTURE RESULTS FOR TORUS FIXED LOCI 3

over BGnm while (2) is the factorization

BΓ →
BG × BT → |{z} BΓ
|{z} .
| {z }
X×BT X BG×BGn
m

and (3) is the factorization

|{z} BG .
BΓ → |{z}
BΓ → |{z}
X X( µr X( T

Example 1.4 (Case of a quotient stack). Let G be a finite group acting on a

connected, reduced, and separated algebraic space U of finite type over k. Suppose
that X := [U/G] → BG is a Gnm -equivariant morphism such that the induced
Gnm -action on the quotient algebraic space U/G = [U/G]cms is trivial. Then BΓ =
[BG/Gnm ] for an extension Γ of Gnm by a finite group G as in (1.1). We set X = [U/Γ]
and we define T = Γ0 , µr = G ∩ T , G = G/µr , and Γ = Γ/µr as above.
Since U is reduced and U → U/G is quasi-finite and equivariant under T → Gnm ,
the action of T (and thus µr ) on U must be trivial. This gives a central subgroup
µr,U of the stabilizer group scheme of the action of G on U and thus a central
subgroup µr,X ⊂ IX /BGnm of the relative inertia. Then (1)-(3) of Theorem 1.1 are
expressed with the factorization
[U/G] × BT = ∼ [U/(G × T )] → [U/Γ] → [U/Γ] = ∼ [U/G] × BGn → [U/G] .
m
| {z } | {z } | {z } | {z }
X×BT X X( µr X( T

Remark 1.5 (Root gerbes). In the case of a Gm -action, the µr -gerbe X → Y

will sometimes be a root gerbe and correspondingly so will X → Y × BGp m . This
occurs for instance in Section 2.1.1 below. Recall that the rth root gerbe r (X, L)
of a line bundle L on X is defined as the fiber product of the map X → BGm
classifying L and the rth power map BGm → BGm . In fact, X → Y is a root
gerbe if and only if its cohomology class in H 2 (Yet , µr ) is the image of a line bundle
[L] ∈ H 1 (Yet , Gm ) under the boundary map induced from the Kummer sequence
1 → µr → Gm → Gm → 1. If X → Y is a root gerbe corresponding to a
line bundle
p L on Y , then the root gerbe corresponding to X → Y × BGm is
X ∼= r (Y × BGm , L ⊠ [1]) where [1] is the weight-1 representation of Gm .
Remark 1.6. Torus actions and fixed loci are ubiquitous in moduli theory. In fact,
localization with respect to a torus action on the moduli space of stable maps as in
[GP99] is one of the main techniques in Gromov–Witten theory, and Theorem 1.1
describes the equivariant geometry of the fixed loci in detail. In Section 2.1, we
give two examples illustrating Theorem 1.1 for moduli spaces of stable maps.
Remark 1.7 (Strategy of proof in the general case). Our strategy to handle the
general case of an algebraic stack X = [X/Gnm] over BGnm is to reduce to the
case where X = [U/G] is a quotient by a finite group. To this end, we prove a
general étale local structure theorem of morphisms X → Y (see Theorem 1.13).
When Y = BGnm , the theorem implies that any point of X has a Gnm -equivariant
étale neighborhood W = [Spec A/G] → X or in other words an étale neighborhood
W = [W/Gnm ] → X over BGnm . We then show that the construction of the sub-
group µr,W ⊂ IW/BGnm descends a central subgroup µr,X ⊂ IX /BGnm and that the
factorizations in parts (1)-(3) can be checked étale locally.
Remark 1.8 (Necessity of hypotheses). The connectedness assumption in Theorem 1.1
is not essential. If X is disconnected, then there will still be a central subgroup of
IX /Gm with the desired properties. On each connected component, this subgroup
will be isomorphic to µr for some tuple of integers r, but these integers will depend
on the connected component.
4 J. ALPER AND F. JANDA

On the other hand, the conclusion of Theorem 1.1 may fail if X is nonreduced.
Consider the affine scheme U = Spec(k[ǫ]/ǫ2 ), and consider the action of Γ =
Gm on U defined by ǫ 7→ tǫ. The quotient stack X = [U/µ2 ] by the subgroup
µ2 ⊂ Γ is a nonreduced, connected Deligne–Mumford stack with coarse moduli
U/µ2 = Spec k. There is an induced action of Gm = Γ/µ2 on X, and the quotient
X = [X/Gm ] = [U/Γ] is a nonreduced and connected algebraic stack over BGm via
the structure morphism X → BGm induced by the squaring map Γ → Gm . Note
that X → Spec k and X → BGm are not µ2 -gerbes.
On the other hand, the theorem does extend to the nonreduced case if we modify
the hypotheses:

Theorem 1.9. Let X = [X/Gnm] → BGnm be a quasi-separated, finite type, and

relatively Deligne–Mumford morphism of algebraic stacks. Assume that the Gnm -
action on X is trivial after a reparameterization of Gnm . Then the conclusion of
Theorem 1.1 holds.

Remark 1.10. In fact, as we will see in Remark 3.3 below, when X is separated
and reduced, a torus action trivial on coarse moduli is automatically also trivial
after a reparameterization, and so Theorem 1.9 generalizes Theorem 1.1.

Remark 1.11 (Restriction to stabilizers). In the setting of Theorem 1.1, for every
point x ∈ X(k), there is a short exact sequence 1 → StabX (x) → StabX (x) →
Gnm → 1. The central subgroup µr,X ⊂ IX /Gnm restricts to the subgroup µr =
StabX (x)0 ∩ StabX (x) ⊂ StabX (x).

Remark 1.12. This paper was inspired and strengthens the second author’s work
[CJR22] (joint with Q. Chen and Y. Ruan) on punctured R-maps in the context
of gauged linear sigma models (GLSM). In fact, as explained in Section 2.2 below
Gm -actions play a central role in the geometry of GLSM. In particular, the notation
for the groups in the sequence (1.1) follows the one used in the work of Polishchuk–
Vaintrob [PV16, § 3.2], and Fan–Jarvis–Ruan [FJR18, § 2].

As µ-gerbes play a central role in the structure of torus fixed loci of Deligne–
Mumford stacks, it is interesting to study the behavior of invariants such as Picard
and Chow groups under taking µ-gerbes. We hope to explore this in future work.
It would also be interesting to study the following generalizations. Are there
analogous results for (tame) Artin stacks with a torus action or Deligne–Mumford
stacks with a non-abelian action? Is there an analogous description for the attractor
locus of a Gm -action?

1.3. A local structure theorem for morphisms. Our proof of Theorem 1.1
uses a special case of the following theorem, which we believe is independently
interesting. It is established using techniques from [AHR20] and [AHR21].

Theorem 1.13. Let f : X → Y be a morphism of quasi-separated algebraic stacks

locally of finite type over k with affine stabilizers. Let x ∈ X (k) and y = f (x) ∈ Y(k)
be its image. Assume that the stabilizers Gx and Gy are linearly reductive. Then
there exist
(1) affine schemes Spec A and Spec B with actions of Gx and Gy , respectively;
(2) k-points x′ ∈ Spec A and y ′ ∈ Spec B;
(3) a morphism g : Spec A → Spec B of affine schemes equivariant with respect to
Gx → Gy ; and
(4) étale morphisms ([Spec A/Gx ], x′ ) → (X , x) and ([Spec B/Gy ], y ′ ) → (Y, y)
inducing isomorphisms of stabilizer groups at x′ and y ′
 STRUCTURE RESULTS FOR TORUS FIXED LOCI 5

such that the diagram

BGx oo [Spec A/Gx ] // X

g f
  
BGy oo [Spec B/Gy ] // Y

is commutative. Moreover, if X and Y have separated diagonal (resp. affine diago-

nal), then the morphisms [Spec A/Gx ] → X and [Spec B/Gy ] → Y can be arranged
to be representable (resp. affine).
A variant of this theorem was recently established in [dCHN23, Thm. 2.1].

Acknowledgements. We thank Martin Bishop, Qile Chen, Giovanni Inchiostro,

Max Lieblich, Rahul Pandharipande, and Minseon Shin for useful discussions re-
lated to this work.
The first author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-2100088. The
second author was partially supported by NSF grants DMS-2239320, DMS-2054830
and DMS-1638352.

2. Examples and Application to gauged linear sigma models

In this section, we further illustrate Theorem 1.1 in examples in moduli theory,
and we explain an application to the geometry of gauged linear sigma models.

2.1. Examples in moduli theory.

2.1.1. Stable maps to a Hirzebruch surface. Let S = PP1 (O(n)⊕O) be a Hirzebruch

surface. We may then consider the Deligne–Mumford stack M = M0,0 (S, rF ) of
genus zero, unpointed stable maps to S whose curve class is r times the fiber
class F . Equip S with a Gm -action that scales the fibers, such that [S/Gm ] ∼ =
PP1 ×BGm ((O(n) ⊠ [1]) ⊕ O), where [1] is the weight one representation of Gm . By
post-composition, this equips M with a Gm -action.
One of the fixed loci of this Gm -action corresponds to the closed substack X of
“Galois covers” C → S that are r-fold covers of a fiber of S →pP1 totally ramified
at two points in C. We may identify X with the root gerbe r (P1 , O(n)), where
the associated map X → P1 records the image of C in P1 , and the universal rth
root corresponds to the normal bundle of C at one of the pramification points.
The quotient X = [X/Gm ] may be identified with r (P1 × BGm , O(n) ⊠ [1]).
This illustrates Theorem 1.1 (1), (2) with Y = P1 .

2.1.2. Stable maps to projective space. Consider the Gm -action on PN given by dis-
tinct weights λ0 , . . . , λN , and the induced Gm -action on Mg,n (PN , d). We illustrate
Theorem 1.1 for each connected component of the fixed locus Mg,n (PN , d)Gm . Fol-
lowing [GP99, §4], each connected component corresponds to a marked graph Γ as
follows. If f : C → PN is a stable map fixed by Gm , then f (C) is a Gm -invariant
curve, and the image of every marked point, node, contracted component, and
ramification point is a Gm -fixed point of PN . Since the weights are distinct, the
Gm -fixed points of PN are the points p0 , . . . , pN corresponding to the standard ba-
sis elements and the Gm -invariant curves are the lines connecting pi to pj . Each
non-contracted component maps to one of these Gm -invariant curves and is rami-
fied over two points, which implies that each such component is rational and that
the map f restricted to this component is determined by its degree. The graph
Γ corresponding to f has vertices corresponding to the connected components of
f −1 ({p0 , . . . , pN }) and has edges corresponding to the non-contracted component.
6 J. ALPER AND F. JANDA

An edge e is incident to a vertex v if the corresponding components of C inter-

sect. In addition, each edge e is marked with the degree de of the map from the
non-contracted component to the line in PN , and each vertex v is marked with
the arithmetic genus g(v) of the corresponding component with the convention
that g(v) = 0 if the component is a single point. There is also a labeling map
i : Vertices → {0, . . . , N} defined by f (v) = pi(v) . Finally, there are n numbered
legs corresponding to the n marked points, with a leg attached to corresponding
vertex.
The connected component of Mg,n (PN , d)Gm containing f is isomorphic to
"  #
Y
Mg(v),val(v) /A ,
v

where A is a split extension

Y
1→ Z/de → A → Aut(Γ) → 1.
e

We now determine the unique integer r arising from Theorem 1.1 for the con-
nected component containing f . For each edge e connecting vertices v1 and v2 , let
λe,1 = λi(v1 ) and λe,2 = λi(v2 ) . We claim that
 
de
(2.1) r = lcm e edge of Γ .
gcd(de , λe,1 − λe,2 )
To see this, we consider the case of a single edge as the general case is similar
and only notationally more complicated. Let f : C → PN be a stable map with
a single component Ce that is not contracted and that maps d to 1 to the line
connecting pi to pj . We may assume that the other pointed components of C have
no automorphisms. The stabilizer of f in [Mg,n (PN , d)/Gm ] is
Stf = {(s, t) | sd = tλe,1 −λe,2 } ⊂ Aut(C) × Gm ,
where s and t are the coordinate of the Gm ’s corresponding to the automor-
phism group of the two-pointed Ce and the two-pointed line in PN . Letting
h = gcd(d, λe,1 − λe,2 ), the connected component St0f of Stf is given by the van-
ishing of sd/h − t(λe,1 −λe,2 )/h . The map St0f → Gm is therefore d/h to 1, and thus
r = d/h, which agrees with (2.1).

2.2. Relationship to Gauged Linear Sigma Models. Gauged linear sigma

models are an important class of models for string theory, initially considered by
Witten [Wit93]. The theory has many aspects such as that it involves a reductive
“gauge” group G acting linearly on a vector space V , and a “phase”, which corre-
sponds to the choice of a GIT chamber for the quotient [V /G]. Most importantly
for us, the theory has an additional “R-symmetry” corresponding to a Gm -action
on [V /G].
In [FJR18], a mathematical theory of enumerative invariants of GLSMs has been
constructed, involving a proper moduli stack and virtual cycle. Many recent ad-
vances in the mathematics of the higher genus Gromov–Witten theory of complete
intersections are based on gauged linear sigma models, see for instance [GJR18]
and [CGL21].
The geometry of the target of GLSM is a Deligne–Mumford stack P◦k together
with an action of Gm . In the above setup, P◦k = [V /G]; however, as explained in
[CJR21], it is possible to develop much of the theory for Deligne–Mumford stacks
P◦k , which are not necessarily quotients of this type. Given this, the moduli objects
considered in GLSM are, roughly speaking, pre-stable curves C together with a
 STRUCTURE RESULTS FOR TORUS FIXED LOCI 7

log
map1 to P◦k twisted by the logarithmic dualizing line bundle ωC according to the
Gm -action. One way to make this precise is using the notion of R-maps of [CJR21]:
An R-map is a morphism f : C → P◦ := [P◦k /Gm ] together with a 2-commutative
triangle
◦
P
f ②②
②<<
②②
②②②log 
② ωC
C // BGm ,

in which the lower horizontal arrow is given by the Gm -torsor corresponding to

log
ωC . The target P◦k of a GLSM is usually not proper, hence so is the moduli space,
and this causes technical difficulties in the theory. This non-properness problem
was resolved in [CJR21] via a logarithmic compactification of the GLSM moduli
space. This involves choosing a Gm -equivariant compactification Pk of P◦k such
that Pk \ P◦k is a smooth, connected Cartier divisor ∞k that is fixed under the
Gm -action. Furthermore, Pk is equipped with a divisorial log structure along ∞k .
As an important part of understanding the structure of logarithmic compactifica-
tions of GLSM moduli spaces, [CJR22] studies punctured R-maps, which are analo-
gous to the punctured maps of Abramovich–Chen–Gross–Siebert [ACGS20], to the
boundary divisor ∞k . In general, the stack underlying ∞k is a smooth Deligne–
Mumford stack with a Gm -action whose coarse moduli space is projective and with
trivial Gm -action. In particular, ∞k satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 1.1. The
logarithmic structure of ∞k is determined by a single Gm -equivariant line bundle
O(∞k ) on ∞k .
This work allows removing an additional assumption on the target ∞k as required
in [CJR22]. More specifically, the results in [CJR22, §7,8] related to the behavior
of punctured R-maps under forgetting a marking assume that ∞k has the structure
of a root gerbe as in Remark 1.5 (see [CJR22, §1.2.2]).
Theorem 1.1 may be used to remove this extra assumption. More specifically,
Part (3) of Theorem 1.1 gives rise to a morphism BT × ∞ → ∞ fitting into a
diagram
BT × ∞ // ∞ ,

 
BT × BGm // BGm

where the lower arrow is induced by T × Gm → Gm , (t, λ) 7→ tr λ. In [CJR22,

§7.2], the analogous structure is called a “twist”, and is only constructed in the
root stack setting. Existence of a twist is crucial for understanding the structure
of the forgetful morphisms. Thus, Theorem 1.1 allows removing the root stack
assumption for the results of [CJR22].

3. Gerbes and torus actions on stacks

3.1. Gerbes and rigidification. We follow the conventions of [Gir71] for gerbes.
If µ is a finite diagonalizable group scheme, then a µ-gerbe X → Y by definition is
a banded µ-gerbe, i.e. X → Y is a gerbe together with the data of isomorphisms
ψx : µT → Aut(x) for every object x ∈ X(T ) such that for an isomorphism α : x → y

1This assumes the ǫ = ∞-stability condition – in general they may be quasi-maps.

8 J. ALPER AND F. JANDA

over T ,
G|T
■■
ψx ✈✈✈ ■■ ψy
■■
✈
✈✈✈ ■■
zz✈✈ ■$$
Innα
AutT (x) // Aut (y).
T

commutes, where Innα (τ ) = ατ α−1 . In other words, there is an isomorphism

ψ : µX → IX/Y of relative group schemes over X.
For an algebraic stack X and a closed fppf subgroup µ ⊂ IX , the rigidification
X( µ is defined as the stackification over (Sch/k)fppf of the prestack with the same
objects as X but where the set of morphisms between a ∈ X(S) and b ∈ X(T ) over
f : S → T is MorX (a, f ∗ b)/µ(S). The rigidification X( µ is an algebraic stack and
X → X( µ is a µ-gerbe.
The universal property of a µ-rigidification X ( µ is as follows: if X → Z is a
morphism such that the composition µr ֒→ IX → IZ ×Z X is the trivial map of
group schemes, then there is a map X( µ → Z unique up to unique isomorphism
filling in the diagram
X ❋
❋❋
❋❋
❋❋
 ❋❋
""
X( µ ❴ ❴ ❴// Z.
If Z is Deligne–Mumford, then by Lemma 3.1 below, it is enough to check that for
every geometric point x ∈ X (L) with image z ∈ Z(L), there is an inclusion
µx ⊂ ker(StabX (x) → StabZ (z)).
Lemma 3.1. Let H → G be a morphism of group schemes, each finite type over
a noetherian scheme S. Suppose that G → S is unramified. Then H → G is the
trivial map if and only if for every geometric point s ∈ S(L), the map Hs → Gs of
group schemes over L is the trivial map
Proof. Since G → S is unramified, the identity section S → G is an open immersion.
As each geometric fiber Hs factors through the identity section, so does H. 
Given µ-gerbes X1 → Y and X2 → Y , the contracted product X1 ∧µ X2 is the
µ-gerbe over Y defined as the rigidification (X1 × X2 )( µ where µ → IX1 ×X2 is
the diagonal subgroup induced from the µ-bands of X1 and X2 .

3.2. Group actions on stacks. We follow [Rom05] for our conventions for group
actions on stacks. A group action of an algebraic group G on an algebraic stack X
is a morphism µ : G × X → X of stacks such that the usual diagrams
idG ×µ (e,idX )
G ×S G ×S X // G ×S X X❍ // G ×S X
❍❍
❍❍
m×idX µ ❍❍ µ
  idX ❍❍❍
µ
// G ## 
G ×S X X
strictly commute.
Example 3.2 (Actions on BG). If G is a finite group, then a Gnm -action on BG is
equivalent to a short exact sequence
1 → G → Γ → Gnm → 1.
The action is trivial if and only if the sequence splits if and only if the sequence
splits trivially.
 STRUCTURE RESULTS FOR TORUS FIXED LOCI 9

To see this, observe that such a short exact sequence induces a cartesian diagram
Gn m
// BG // Spec k

  
Spec k // BΓ // BGnm .

In particular, BG → BΓ is a Gnm -torsor and Gnm acts on BG. Conversely, the

quotient stack [BG/Gnm ] has one point and is thus isomorphic to BΓ for some
algebraic group Γ. The composition BG → BΓ → BGnm induces a short exact
sequence 1 → G → Γ → Gnm → 1.
3.3. Fixed locus of a torus action. The are several distinct ways to formulate
the fixed locus for the action of a torus T on a Deligne–Mumford stack X. First,
there is the stack of morphisms
MorT (Spec k, X),
where an object over a k-scheme S is the data of a T -equivariant map S → X, where
S has the trivial action. This is an algebraic stack and if X has separated diagonal,
then MorT (Spec k, X) → X is a closed immersion. For the nontrivial action of
Gm on Bµn arising from the Kummer sequence, the stack MorT (Spec k, Bµn ) is
empty. Note that the cover Spec k → Bµn is not Gm -equivariant, but it becomes
equivariant with respect to the reparameterization Gm → Gm given by t 7→ tn .
We define the fixed stack as the union of the closed substacks
[ ′
X T := MorT (Spec k, X)
T ′ →T
over all homomorphisms T = ′
Gm → Gnm
n
= T with finite kernel. In the example of
a nontrivial Gm action on Bµn , the fixed locus is Bµn . See [AHR20, § 5.4], [Kre99,
§ 6.3], and [AKL+ , Appendix A] for a further discussion of fixed loci.
Remark 3.3 (Trivial after reparameterization). Consider the following three con-
ditions for an action of a torus T on a separated Deligne–Mumford stack X of finite
type over k:
(a) X T = X,
(b) there exists a reparameterization T ′ → T of tori such that the T ′ -action on X
is trivial,
(c) the induced T -action on Xcms is trivial.
We claim that there are implications
(a) ⇐⇒ (b) =⇒ (c),
and that (c) =⇒ (b) if in addition X is reduced. The equivalence (a) ⇐⇒ (b)
follows from the definition of the fixed stack X T . Observe that the action of a
torus T on a separated algebraic space Y is trivial if and only if it is trivial after a
reparameterization T ′ → T : indeed, this follows from flat descent as the stabilizer
′
subgroup scheme StabTX ⊂ T × X pulls back to StabTX ⊂ T ′ × X. Therefore,
(b) =⇒ (c).
Assuming (c), [AHR20, Proposition 5.32] implies that that there is a reparame-
′
terization T ′ → T such that MorT (Spec k, X) ֒→ X is a nilimmersion. Therefore,
if X is reduced, X T = X.
3.4. Universal properties. The goal of this subsection is to prove and elaborate
on the universal property of the factorization
X → X( µr = ∼ Y × BGn → Xcms × BGn
m m
in Part (1) of Theorem 1.1.
10 J. ALPER AND F. JANDA

Proposition 3.4. Under the hypotheses of Theorem 1.1, assume that there is a
central diagonalizable closed subgroup scheme µr,X ⊂ IX /BGnm with r = (r1 , . . . , rn )
and a factorization
(3.1) X → X( µr,X ∼ = Y × BGn → Xcms × BGn ,
m m

where Y is a Deligne–Mumford stack, such that for every geometric point x ∈

X(L), the restriction of µr,X ⊂ IX /BGnm to x is identified with the intersection
StabX (x) ∩ StabX (x)0 inside StabX (x). Then the factorization (3.1) satisfies the
following two universal properties:
(a) if X → Y ′ × BGnm → Xcms × BGnm is another factorization where Y ′ is a
Deligne–Mumford stack, then there is a morphism g : Y → Y ′ unique up to
unique isomorphism fitting in the diagram
X ■ // Y × BGn // Xcms × BGn
■■
■■ ✤ m ♥♥77
m
■■ ✤ ♥♥ ♥
■■ ✤ g×id ♥♥♥♥♥
■$$  ♥♥
Y ′ × BGnm .
(b) if H ⊂ IX /BGnm is a closed fppf subgroup such that X ( H ∼
= Y ′ × BGnm over
Xcms × BGnm for some Deligne–Mumford stack Y ′ , then µr,X ⊂ H.
Proof. For (a), by the universal property of the rigidification and Lemma 3.1, it
suffices to show that for every geometric point x ∈ X (L) with image y ′ ∈ Y ′ (L),
the induced map µr ֒→ StabX (x) → StabY ′ (y ′ ) is trivial. Consider the group
T = StabX (x)0 , which is necessarily isomorphic to Gnm (see §4.1). Since StabY ′ (y ′ )
is finite, the morphism T → StabY ′ (y ′ ) is necessarily trivial. Since by assumption,
T contains µr , we conclude the proof of Part (a).
The same argument can be used to show (b). Alternatively, we can see (b) as a
consequence of (a) since it implies the existence of the dotted arrow
X ❊ // X( µr // Xcms × BGn
m
❊❊
❊❊
✤
♣♣♣♣88
❊❊ ✤ ♣
❊❊ ✤ ♣♣♣
""  ♣♣♣
X( H
which in turn implies the inclusion µr,X ⊂ H. 
Remark 3.5. The universal property of (a) does not hold for an arbitrary algebraic
stack Y ′ . For instance, for the action of Gm on X = Bµr arising from the Kummer
sequence where Y = Spec k and the µr -rigidification p : X = BT → BGm , the map
(id, p) : X → BT × BGm does not factor through p : X → BGm .
We also point out that while the subgroup µr,X ⊂ IX /BGnm is central, the uni-
versal property (b) does not require H to be.

4. Extensions of tori and the quotient case

In this section, we prove a description of extensions of tori by finite groups, which
we then apply to prove Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.9 in the cases of classifying
and quotient stacks.
4.1. Extensions of Gnm by finite groups. Let Γ be an algebraic group over k
that is a group extension of Gnm by a finite group G:
(4.1) 1 → G → Γ → Gnm → 1,
which by Example 3.2 corresponds to a Gnm -action on BG. The connected compo-
nent Γ0 ⊂ Γ of the identity is a reductive algebraic group of dimension n. Since
 STRUCTURE RESULTS FOR TORUS FIXED LOCI 11

we have a surjection Γ0 → Gnm , by [Bor91, Cor. 1 of Prop. 11.14] there is a torus

T ⊂ Γ0 such the composition T ֒→ Γ0 → Gnm is an isogeny. Since dim Γ0 = n, we
conclude that Γ0 = T and that T is an n-dimensional torus.
The composition T ֒→ Γ → Gnm fits into an exact sequence
(4.2) 1 → µr → T → Gnm → 1,
for a diagonalizable group scheme µr . The map T → Gnm corresponds to an injective
map of free Z-modules of rank n. By the structure theorem of submodules of Zr ,
we can choose a basis such that T → Gnm is given by (t1 , . . . , tn ) 7→ (tr11 , . . . , trnn )
for a unique tuple r = (r1 , . . . , rn ) of integers with r1 |r2 | · · · |rn . This implies that
µr = µr 1 × · · · × µr n .
By uniqueness of T , the subgroup µr ⊂ Γ is characteristic, and hence normal.
The inclusion µr ֒→ T ֒→ Γ factors through G yielding an exact sequence
(4.3) 1 → G → Γ → Gnm → 1,
where G = G/µr and Γ = Γ/µr .

Lemma 4.1. The sequence (4.3) is trivially split, i.e. Γ ∼

= G × Gnm .
Proof. The inclusion T ֒→ Γ descends to a homomorphism
T /µr = Gnm → Γ = Γ/µr
splitting (4.3). The lemma follows as there are no non-trivial homomorphisms
Gnm → Aut(G) 

In other words, the lemma gives an exact sequence

1 → µr → Γ → G × Gnm → 1.
Moreover, since the homomorphism G × T → Γ is surjective, there is an exact
sequence
(4.4) 1 → µr → G × T → Γ → 1
induced by the inclusions G ⊂ Γ and T ⊂ Γ.
Lemma 4.2. The subgroup T ⊂ Γ is central with quotient Γ/T ∼
= G.
Proof. We first show that the sequence
i j
(4.5) 1→T −
→Γ−
→G→1
is exact, where i is the inclusion, and j is the composition Γ → Γ → G. Clearly, i
is injective and j is surjective. Now consider the commutative diagram

// T i // Γ // K // 1
1 ❃❃
❃❃ j
p q ❃❃ k
 ❃❃ 
 
1 // Gnm // Γ // G // 1

with exact rows. Since p is surjective, and ker(p) → ker(q) is an isomorphism, the
snake lemma implies that k is an isomorphism, yielding the exact sequence (4.5).
Since T is normal in Γ, conjugation induces a homomorphism Γ → Aut(T ) =
GLn (Z). Similarly, since Gnm is normal in Γ, there is a homomorphism Γ →
12 J. ALPER AND F. JANDA

Aut(Gm ) = GLn (Z). The subgroup µ ⊂ T is characteristic, and there is an in-

duced map Aut(T ) → Aut(Gnm ), which must be an isomorphism. This gives a
commutative diagram
Γ // Aut(T )

∼
 
Γ // Aut(Gn ).
m

Since Γ ∼
= G × Gnm , we conclude that Γ → Aut(Gnm ) is trivial and thus so is
Γ → Aut(T ). 
Proposition 4.3. Theorem 1.1 holds for X = BΓ.
Proof. Lemma 4.2 gives central subgroups µr ⊂ Γ and T ⊂ Γ with isomorphisms
BΓ( µr = ∼ BΓ and BΓ( T ∼ = BG
where as above Γ = Γ/µr and G = G/µr . Lemma 4.1 gives an identification of
Γ∼= G × Gnm . Defining Y := BG, the factorization BΓ → BΓ( µr ∼ = Y × BGnm →
n
BGm satisfies the universal property by Proposition 3.4, yielding Part (1). Part (2)
follows from the exact sequence (4.4), while Part (3) follows from the identification
BΓ( T ∼ = BG = Y and (4.4). 
4.2. Quotient case. The case of a quotient stack follows easily from the case of a
classifying stack. We will use the group-theoretic notation from Section 4.1.
Proposition 4.4. Theorem 1.9 holds for X = [U/Γ] where U is a connected and
quasi-separated algebraic space U of finite type over k.
Proof. By the hypotheses of Theorem 1.9, X := [U/G] → BG is a Gnm -equivariant
morphism such that the Gnm -action on X becomes trivial after a reparameterization
T ′ of Gnm . We may assume without loss generality that T ′ → Gnm factors through
T . Since the action of T ′ on X is trivial, we have [U/(Γ ×Gnm T ′ )] ∼ = [U/G] × BT ′
′ ′
over BT . We claim that since p : U → X is finite étale, the T action on U is
trivial. Indeed, as the T ′ action on X is trivial, A := p∗ OU can be written as the
direct sum A0 ⊕ A′ , where A0 is the weight 0 subspace and A′ is the direct sum
of the non-trivial weight subspaces. If I ⊂ OX denotes the nilradical, then IOU is
the nilradical of U (since U → X is étale) and IA = p∗ (IOU ) is the nilradical of
A. As T ′ acts trivially on Ured , A′ ⊂ IA = IA0 ⊕ IA′ , and it follows from weight
considerations that A′ ⊂ IA′ . As A′ is a coherent OX -module (since U → X is
finite), Nakayama’s Lemma implies that A′ = 0.
This implies that the action of T on U is also trivial. Therefore, the µr -action on
U is trivial and we have an isomorphism X( µr ∼ = [U/Γ]. Using the isomorphism
Γ∼ = G × Gnm from Lemma 4.1, we have further identifications
X( µr ∼= [U/Γ] ∼ = [U/(G × Gn )] ∼
m = [U/G] × BGn ,m
where in the final equivalence we have used that the Gnm -action on U must be trivial
(as the T -action is trivial).
For each geometric point x ∈ X(L), restricting the Gnm -torsor X → X to residual
gerbes at x induces a Gnm -torsor BGx → BΓx , where Gx = StabX (x) ⊂ G and
Γx = StabX (x). As Γ0x = Γ0 , we have the identification µr = Gx ∩ Γ0x . By
Proposition 3.4, the factorization
[U/Γ] → [U/Γ] = [U/G] × BGnm → U/G × BGnm
satisfies the universal property, yielding part (1). As in the case of the classifying
stack, parts (2) and (3) follow from the exact sequence (4.4) and the identification
BΓ( T ∼ = BG. 
 STRUCTURE RESULTS FOR TORUS FIXED LOCI 13

Corollary 4.5. Theorem 1.1 holds for X = [U/Γ] where U is a connected, reduced,
and separated algebraic space U of finite type over k.
Proof. By Remark 3.3, there is a reparameterization T ′ → T of tori such that the
T ′ -action on X = [U/G] is trivial. Therefore, the result follows from Proposition 4.4.
Alternatively, we can argue similarly to Proposition 4.4. By the hypotheses of
Theorem 1.1, X = [U/G] → BG is a Gnm -equivariant morphism such that the in-
duced Gnm -action on the quotient algebraic space U/G = [U/G]cms is trivial. The
map U → U/G is quasi-finite and equivariant under T → Gnm . Since U is re-
duced, the T -action on U must also be trivial. From here, the proof proceeds as in
Proposition 4.4. 

5. A Gm -equivariant Luna étale slice theorem

In this section, we prove an étale local structure theorem for morphisms (Theorem 1.13),
from which we deduce a torus-equivariant Luna étale slice theorem (Corollary 5.3),
which in turn is applied to prove the general case of Theorem 1.1.
5.1. Étale local structure of morphisms.
Proof of Theorem 1.13. Applying [AHR20, Thm. 1.1] to (Y, y) yields an étale mor-
phism
(5.1) ([Spec B/Gy ], y ′ ) → (Y, y)
inducing an isomorphism of stabilizer groups at y ′ . Applying loc. cit. again to the
base change [Spec B/Gy ] ×Y X yields an étale morphism
(5.2) ([Spec A/Gx ], x′ ) → ([Spec B/Gy ] ×Y X , (y ′ , x))
inducing an isomorphism of stabilizer groups at x′ . The composition [Spec A/Gx ] →
[Spec B/Gy ] ×Y X → X is also étale and induces an isomorphism of stabilizer
groups at x′ . It remains to verify that the morphism [Spec A/Gx ] → [Spec B/Gy ]
is induced by a morphism Spec A → Spec B equivariant with respect to Gx → Gy ,
or equivalently that the diagram
[Spec A/Gx ] // BGx

 
[Spec B/Gy ] // BGy

is commutative.
Let p, q : [Spec A/Gx ] → BGy denote the two composition morphisms, and let P
and Q denote the corresponding Gy -torsors over [Spec A/Gx ]. Since (5.1) and (5.2)
∼
induce isomorphism of stabilizers at y ′ and x′ , there is a 2-isomorphism p|BGx′ →
q|BGx′ of the restrictions of p and q along the inclusion BGx′ → [Spec A/Gx ] of
the residual gerbe of x′ , and therefore an isomorphism α0 : P|BGx′ → Q|BGx′ of
Gy -torsors. The stack I := Isom[Spec A/Gx ] (P, Q) parameterizing isomorphisms of
Gy -torsors is smooth and affine over [Spec A/Gx ]. The isomorphism α0 defines
a section of I → [Spec A/Gx ] over BGx . By [AHR21, Prop. 7.18], there exists
an étale neighborhood Spec R → Spec AGx such that α0 extends to a section of
I → [Spec A/Gx ] over Spec R ×Spec AGx [Spec A/Gx ]. Therefore, after replacing A
with R ⊗AGx A, there is a 2-isomorphism of p and q.
The addendums follow from [AHR21, Prop. 5.7]. 
There is a stronger version when X → Y is a smooth morphism of smooth
noetherian algebraic stacks. For a point x ∈ X (k), we let Nx denote the normal
space to x, viewed as a Gx -representation. Explicitly, as x ∈ |X | is locally closed,
14 J. ALPER AND F. JANDA

there is an open neighborhood U ⊂ X of x such that the inclusion BGx → U is a

closed immersion defined by an ideal sheaf I, and we take Nx = (I/I 2 )∨ . Recall
also that a morphism X → Y of algebraic stacks admitting good moduli spaces X
and Y is called strongly étale if the induced map X → Y is étale and X ∼
= X ×Y Y.
Corollary 5.1. Let f : X → Y be a smooth morphism of smooth quasi-separated
algebraic stacks with affine stabilizers. Let x ∈ X (k) and y = f (x) ∈ Y(k). Assume
that the stabilizers Gx and Gy are linearly reductive. Then there exist
(1) affine schemes Spec A and Spec B with actions of Gx and Gy , respectively;
(2) k-points x′ ∈ Spec A and y ′ ∈ Spec B;
(3) a morphism g : Spec A → Spec B of affine schemes equivariant with respect to
Gx → Gy ; and
(4) étale morphisms ([Spec A/Gx ], x′ ) → (X , x) and ([Spec B/Gy ], y ′ ) → (Y, y)
inducing isomorphisms of stabilizer groups at x′ and y ′ ; and
(5) strongly étale morphisms ([Spec A/Gx ], x′ ) → ([Nx /Gx ], 0) and ([Spec B/Gy ], y ′ ) →
([Ny /Gy ], 0).
such that the diagram
[Nx /Gx ] oo [Spec A/Gx ] // X

g f
  
[Ny /Gy ] oo [Spec B/Gy ] // Y

is commutative. Moreover, if X and Y have separated diagonal (resp. affine diago-

nal), then the morphisms [Spec A/Gx ] → X and [Spec B/Gy ] → Y can be arranged
to be representable (resp. affine).
Remark 5.2. The above theorem was independently proved in [dCHN23, Thm. 2.1].
Proof. The existence of the right commutative diagram follows from Theorem 1.13.
The existence of the strongly étale morphisms ([Spec A/Gx ], x′ ) → ([Nx /Gx ], 0) and
([Spec B/Gy ], y ′ ) → ([Ny /Gy ], 0) is a consequence of [AHR20, Thm. 1.2]. Under
the natural map [Nx /Gx ] → [Ny /Gy ], the left diagram can be arranged to be
commutative by the same argument used in the proof of Theorem 1.13. 
5.2. A torus-equivariant Luna étale slice theorem. We record a special case
of Theorem 1.13 when the target Y is the classifying stack of a torus T . Let X
be a quasi-separated and locally of finite type algebraic stack with a T -action,
and set X = [X/T ] to be the quotient stack over BT . For x ∈ X(k), we let
Gx = AutX(k) (x), Γx = AutX (k) (x), and Tx = im(Γx → T ). In other words, Gx
and Γx sit in the following exact sequences:
1 → Gx → Γx → Tx → 1 and 1 → Tx → T → T /Tx → 1.
Observe that if W is a scheme with a Γx -action, then [W/Γx ] is naturally an al-
gebraic stack over BT via [W/Γx ] → BΓx → BT . The fiber product [W/Γx ] ×BT
Spec k is isomorphic to [(W × T )/Γx ], where Γx acts diagonally, and inherits a
T -action such that [W/Γx ] ∼
= [[(W × T )/Γx ]/T ].
Corollary 5.3. Let X = [X/T ], where X is a quasi-separated and locally of finite
type algebraic stack over k with affine stabilizers and with an action by a torus T .
Let x ∈ X (k) be a point with linearly reductive stabilizer (which is automatic if
X is a tame Deligne–Mumford stack). Then there exists an affine scheme W with
a Γx -action and an étale morphism ([W/Γx ], w) → (X , x) over BT inducing an
isomorphism of stabilizer groups at w. 
 STRUCTURE RESULTS FOR TORUS FIXED LOCI 15

Remark 5.4. The following are special cases of the above corollary:
(1) If the Gm -action on X is trivial, i.e. X = X × BGm , then this follows from the
Luna étale slice theorem for algebraic stacks [AHR20, Thm. 1.1].
(2) If X is an algebraic space, then this is Sumihiro’s theorem for torus actions
generalized to algebraic spaces [AHR20, Thm. 4.1].
5.3. Proof of the general case of Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. For every x ∈ X , we use Corollary 5.3 to obtain an étale
morphism
(5.3) U = [Spec A/Γx ] = [U/Gnm ] → [X/Gnm] = X
over BGnm and a preimage u ∈ U(k) of x, where U = [Spec A/Gx ]. By Corollary 4.5,
the theorem holds for U. This gives a unique tuple r = (r1 , . . . , rn ) and a central
closed subgroup µr,U ⊂ IU /BGnm . Moreover, the construction of the subgroup µr,U
is canonical: writing Γx as an extension 1 → Gx → Γx → Gnm → 1, then µr =
Gx ∩ Γ0x ⊂ Γx acts trivially on Spec A and this defines µr,U . As X is connected, the
tuple r = (r1 , . . . , rn ) is the same for every étale neighborhood. Moreover, covering
X with étale neighborhoods as in (5.3), we have canonical isomorphisms of the
subgroups of the inertia over intersections, and this provides descent data for the
construction of a central closed subgroup µr,X ⊂ IX /BGnm .
The rigidification X ( µr,X is the quotient stack of X( µr,X by Gnm . An étale
neighborhood (5.3) induces étale neighborhoods U( µr,U → X( µr,X and U( µr,U →
X( µr,X . Since Gnm acts trivially on U( µr,U , it acts trivially on Y := X( µr,X .
This gives a factorization
X → X( µr,X ∼ = Y × BGn → Xcms × BGn ,
m m

which satisfies the universal property by Proposition 3.4, yielding part (1). The
factorizations in parts (2) and (3) also follow from étale descent. 

References
[ACGS20] Dan Abramovich, Qile Chen, Mark Gross, and Bernd Siebert, Punctured logarithmic
maps, 2020.
[AHR20] Jarod Alper, Jack Hall, and David Rydh, A Luna étale slice theorem for algebraic
stacks, Ann. of Math. (2) 191 (2020), no. 3, 675–738. MR 4088350
[AHR21] Jarod Alper, Jack Hall, and David Rydh, The étale local structure of algebraic stacks,
2021.
[AKL+ ] Dhyan Aranha, Adeel Khan, Alexei Latyntsev, Hyeonjun Park, and Charanya Ravi,
Localization theorems for algebraic stacks.
[Bor91] Armand Borel, Linear algebraic groups, second ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics,
vol. 126, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991. MR 1102012
[CGL21] Huai-Liang Chang, Shuai Guo, and Jun Li, Polynomial structure of Gromov-Witten
potential of quintic 3-folds, Ann. of Math. (2) 194 (2021), no. 3, 585–645. MR 4334973
[CJR21] Qile Chen, Felix Janda, and Yongbin Ruan, The logarithmic gauged linear sigma model,
Invent. Math. 225 (2021), no. 3, 1077–1154. MR 4296354
[CJR22] , Punctured logarithmic R-maps, 2022.
[dCHN23] Mark Andrea de Cataldo, Andres Fernandez Herrero, and Andrés Ibáñez Núñez, Rel-
ative étale slices and cohomology of moduli spaces, 2023.
[FJR18] Huijun Fan, Tyler J. Jarvis, and Yongbin Ruan, A mathematical theory of the gauged
linear sigma model, Geom. Topol. 22 (2018), no. 1, 235–303. MR 3720344
[Gir71] Jean Giraud, Cohomologie non abélienne, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1971, Die
Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 179. MR 0344253
[GJR18] Shuai Guo, Felix Janda, and Yongbin Ruan, Structure of higher genus Gromov-Witten
invariants of quintic 3-folds, 2018.
[GP99] Tom Graber and Rahul Pandharipande, Localization of virtual classes, Invent. Math.
135 (1999), no. 2, 487–518. MR 1666787 (2000h:14005)
[Kre99] Andrew Kresch, Cycle groups for Artin stacks, Invent. Math. 138 (1999), no. 3, 495–
536. MR 1719823
16 J. ALPER AND F. JANDA

[PV16] Alexander Polishchuk and Arkady Vaintrob, Matrix factorizations and cohomological
field theories, J. Reine Angew. Math. 714 (2016), 1–122. MR 3491884
[Rom05] Matthieu Romagny, Group actions on stacks and applications, Michigan Math. J. 53
(2005), no. 1, 209–236. MR 2125542
[Wit93] Edward Witten, Phases of N = 2 theories in two dimensions, Nuclear Phys. B 403
(1993), no. 1-2, 159–222. MR 1232617 (95a:81261)

(J. Alper) Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Box 354350, Seat-

tle, WA 98195–4350, U.S.A.
Email address: jarod@uw.edu

(F. Janda) Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign,

Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A.
Email address: fjanda@illinois.edu