Mathematische Zeitschrift (2022) 302:803–837

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-022-03074-9 Mathematische Zeitschrift

A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli spaces of

sheaves on X14 and Y3

Zhiyu Liu1 · Shizhuo Zhang2

Received: 11 July 2021 / Accepted: 9 June 2022 / Published online: 20 July 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
We study Bridgeland moduli spaces of semistable objects of (−1)-classes and (−4)-classes
in the Kuznetsov components on index one prime Fano threefold X 4d+2 of degree 4d + 2
and index two prime Fano threefold Yd of degree d for d = 3, 4, 5. For every Serre-invariant
stability condition on the Kuznetsov components, we show that the moduli spaces of stable
objects of (−1)-classes on X 4d+2 and Yd are isomorphic. We show that moduli spaces of stable
objects of (−1)-classes on X 14 are realized by Fano surface C (X ) of conics, moduli spaces
of semistable sheaves M X (2, 1, 6) and M X (2, −1, 6) and the correspondent moduli spaces
on cubic threefold Y3 are realized by moduli spaces of stable vector bundles MYb (2, 1, 2) and
MYb (2, −1, 2). We show that moduli spaces of semistable objects of (−4)-classes on Yd are
isomorphic to the moduli spaces of instanton sheaves MYinst when d  = 1, 2, and show that
there are open immersions of MYinst into moduli spaces of semistable objects of (−4)-classes
when d = 1, 2. Finally, when d = 3, 4, 5 we show that these moduli spaces are all isomorphic
to M Xss (2, 0, 4).

Keywords Derived categories · Bridgeland moduli spaces · Kuznetsov components

Mathematics Subject Classification Primary 14F05; Secondary 14J45 · 14D20 · 14D23

This note is part of the Undergraduate Mathematcial Research Project of Zhiyu Liu mentored by Shizhuo
Zhang. Shizhuo Zhang is supported by ERC Consolidator Grant WallCrossAG, no. 819864.

B Shizhuo Zhang
[email protected]
Zhiyu Liu
[email protected]
1 Department of Mathematics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, Sichuan , People’s Republic of
China
2 School of Mathematics, The University of Edinburgh, JCMB Building, Kings Building, Edinburgh EH9
3FD, UK

123
804 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The notion of stability on a triangulated category was introduced by Bridgeland in [14]. It

enables us to construct moduli spaces of semistable objects in a general triangulated category,
which provides a powerful machinery to study the geometry of classical moduli spaces. One
of the most striking progress is made in [4, 5], where the authors construct moduli space
of Bridgeland stable objects on a K3 surface S with respect to a stability condition σ in
the stability manifold Stab(S). They realized each birational model of a moduli space of
stable sheaves on such a K3 surface S as Bridgeland moduli space. They showed that the
minimal model program for this moduli space corresponds to a wall-crossing in Stab(S) in a
precise way. On the other hand, it has been widely accepted that a non-trivial semi-orthogonal
component Ku(X ) (called the Kuznetsov component) of a bounded derived category Db (X )
of a smooth projective variety X encodes essential information of its birational geometry
and classical moduli spaces on it. Recently, in [7], the authors provide a criterion to induce a
stability condition σ on the Kuznetsov components Ku(X ) of a series prime Fano threefolds X
from weak stability conditions on Db (X ). Thus, it becomes possible to construct Bridgeland
moduli spaces Mσ (Ku(X ), c) of σ -stable objects of class c in Ku(X ) to study birational
geometry of classical moduli spaces of semistable sheaves on X . In the present note, we
make an attempt in this direction.
Let Yd be a prime Fano threefold of index 2 and degree d. We consider the semiorthogonal
decomposition of Yd given by
Db (Yd ) = Ku(Yd ), OYd , OYd (1)
The numerical Grothendieck group N (Ku(Yd )) of Ku(Yd ) is a rank two lattice spanned by
 
1 2 1 2 1 1
v := [I L ] = 1 − H , w := H − H + − H3
d 2 6 d
where I L is an ideal sheaf of a line L on Yd .
Let X 2g−2 be an index one prime Fano threefold of genus g and degree 2g − 2. The
semi-orthogonal decomposition of X 2g−2 are given in [25, 26]:
Db (X 2g−2 ) = A X 2g−2 , O X 2g−2 , E ∨ .
The numerical Grothendieck group N (A X 2g−2 ) of A X 2g−2 is a rank two lattice spanned
by
 
1 g 16 − g
s := [IC ] = 1 − H 2 , t := H − +1 L − P
g−1 2 12
where IC is an ideal sheaf of a conic C on X 2g−2 .
We call u ∈ N (Ku(Yd )) (or N (X 2g−2 )) a (−r )-class if χ(u, u) = −r , where χ(−, −) is
the Euler pair. As noted in [26, Proposition 3.9], the Chern character map identifies the numer-
ical Grothendieck group with the lattice generated by Chern characters of some sheaves, then
we will use notations of numerical class and Chern character alternatively.
In [26, 28], the author established equivalences of triangulated categories Ku(Yd ) ∼ =
A X 4d+2 for some pairs (Yd , X 4d+2 ) ∈ Z d ⊂ MF 2d × MF 14d+2 .

Theorem 1.1 [26, 28] Let MF id be the moduli space of index i degree d prime Fano threefold.
Then for each 3 ≤ d ≤ 5, there is a correspondence Z d ⊂ MF 2d × MF 14d+2 which

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 805

is dominant over each factor and such that for any point (Yd , X 4d+2 ) ∈ Z d there is an
equivalence

 : Ku(Yd ) ∼
= A X 4d+2 .

Moreover, this equivalence  induces an isometry between numerical Grothendieck

groups, and maps the class of the ideal sheaves of lines v := [I L ] to the class of the ideal
sheaves of conics s := [IC ]. Using this, [28] proved the isomorphisms of Fano surface (Yd )
of lines and Fano surface C (X 4d+2 ) of conics. In the present note, we mainly study various
classical moduli spaces on these Fano threefolds from a modern point of view. We apply the
techniques developed in [1, 9, 35, 40] to identify several interesting classical moduli spaces
of sheaves with Bridgeland moduli spaces of stable objects in Kuznetsov components of
prime Fano threefolds of index one and two. Then we use equivalence in Theorem 1.1 to
study moduli spaces on index one prime Fano threefolds via the ones on index two Fano
threefold. We focus on moduli space Mσ
(A X , c
)(or Mσ (Ku(Y ), c)) of stable objects of
(−1)-classes and (−4)-classes in Kuznetsov component A X and Ku(Y ). The former ones
provide moduli spaces of minimal dimension. Typical stable object of (−1)-class in Ku(Y )
are given by the ideal sheaves of lines v up to auto-equivalences of Ku(Y ). The latter ones
can be regarded as moduli spaces of stable objects of twice of (−1)-classes. We denote by

Mssσ
(A X , c ) the moduli space of S-equivalence classes of σ -semistable objects.

1.2 Main results

Let M Xss (r , c1 , c2 ) be the moduli space of S-equivalence classes of rank r torsion-free

Gieseker-semistable sheaves with Chern classes c1 , c2 and ci = 0 for i ≥ 3, and
M X (r , c1 , c2 ) be its stable locus.
We first focus on the moduli spaces of (−1)-classes. Up to sign, there are three (−1)-
classes in N (A X ): s, 3s − t and 2s − t, and three (−1)-classes in N (Ku(Y )): v, v − w and
2v − w. We realize all these Bridgeland moduli spaces as classical moduli spaces.

Theorem 1.2 (1) Let X be a prime Fano threefold of index 1 and degree 14. Let σ
be a
Serre-invariant stability condition on A X . Then we have the following isomorphisms
between classical moduli spaces and Bridgeland moduli spaces of stable objects:
∼
=
(a) (Proposition 4.4) C (X ) −
→ Mσ
(A X , s).
∼
=
(b) (Proposition 5.8) M X (2, 1, 6) −
→ Mσ
(A X 14 , 3s − t).
∼
=
(c) (Proposition 5.11) M X (2, −1, 6) −
→ Mσ
(A X 14 , 2s − t).
(2) Let Y be a cubic threefold. Let σ be a Serre-invariant stability condition on Ku(Y ).Then
we have the following isomorphisms between moduli spaces of stable sheaves and Bridge-
land moduli spaces of stable objects:
∼
=
(a) (Proposition 5.15) MYb (2, 1, 2) −
→ Mσ (Ku(Y ), v − w).
∼
=
(b) (Proposition 5.18) MYb (2, −1, 2) −
→ Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2v − w).

Using the equivalence in Theorem 1.1 for degree 14 prime Fano threefold X 14 and associ-
ated cubic threefold Y3 and the properties of Serre-invariant stability conditions on Kuznetsov
components, we recover two classical results:

123
806 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

Corollary 1.3 [23, Theorem 7.2] Let X be a prime Fano threefold of index 1 and degree 14.
Then we have the following isomorphism:
M X (2, 1, 6) ∼
= C (X )

Corollary 1.4 [10, Theorem 1] Let Y be a cubic threefold. Then we have the following iso-
morphism:
MYb (2, 1, 2) ∼
= (Y )

Next, we focus on moduli spaces of stable objects of (−4)-class in A X and Ku(Y ). Typical
examples of these moduli spaces are moduli space of instanton sheaves on del Pezzo threefold
Y and compactification of ACM sheaves on prime Fano threefolds of index one studied in
[12]. Originally, instanton bundles appeared in [3] as a way to describe Yang-Mills instantons
on a 4-sphere S 4 , which play an important role in Yang-Mills gauge theory. They provide
extremely interesting links between physics and algebraic geometry. The mathematical notion
of an instanton bundle was first introduced on P3 and generalized to Fano threefolds in [18,
27]. On Y = Y3 and Y4 , the instantonic condition is automatically satisfied for stable bundles
of rank 2 with c1 = 0, c2 = 2, c3 = 0 (for precise definitions, see Sect. 6), as proved in [17,
37]. On Y5 , this is conjectured in [39, Conjecture 3.7] and we will prove this in Lemma 6.8. On
the index one side, there are also some interesting moduli spaces of sheaves. As shown in [12],
when X is a non-hyperelliptic prime Fano threefold, there are some arithmetically Cohen-
Macaulay (ACM) bundles in the moduli space M Xss (2, 0, 4), and the sheaves in M Xss (2, 0, 4)
are classified when genus g ≥ 7. We denote the moduli space of S-equivalence classes of
instanton sheaves by MYinst and study its relation with the moduli space and the Bridgeland
moduli spaces of S-equivalence classes of semistable objects of (−4)-classes in Ku(Y ). More
precisely, we have:

Theorem 1.5 (Theorems 7.6, 7.7, 9.4)

(1) Let Y := Yd be a prime Fano threefold of index 2 and degree d. When d  = 1, 2, we have
an isomorphism between moduli space of S-equivalence classes of instanton sheaves and
Bridgeland moduli space:
∼
=
MYinst −
→ Mss
σ (Ku(Y ), 2v)

for every Serre-invariant stability condition σ on Ku(Yd ).

When d = 1, 2, we have an open immersion:
MYinst → Mss
σ (Ku(Y ), 2v)

for every stability condition σ ∈ K, where K is a certain family of stability conditions.

(2) Let X be a prime Fano threefold of index 1 and degree 14, 18 or 22. Then we have an
isomorphism between moduli space of S-equivalence classes of semistable sheaves and
Bridgeland moduli space:
∼
=
M Xss (2, 0, 4) −
→ Mss
σ
(A X , 2s)

such that the restriction gives

∼
=
M X (2, 0, 4) −
→ Mσ
(A X , 2s)
for every Serre-invariant stability condition σ
on A X .

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 807

In fact, one is able to show that there is an open immersion MYinst

2
→ Mss
σ (Ku(Y2 ), 2v) for
every Serre-invariant stability condition σ on Ku(Y2 ). As a corollary, we have the following
isomorphisms of moduli spaces of sheaves:

Corollary 1.6 Let (Y , X ) ∈ Z d ⊂ MF 2d × MF 14d+2 and 3 ≤ d ≤ 5. Then we have the

following isomorphism of moduli spaces
MYinst ∼
= M Xss (2, 0, 4)

More generally, we prove following results.

Theorem 1.7 Let (Y , X ) ∈ Z d ⊂ MF 2d × MF 14d+2 and 3 ≤ d ≤ 5. Let σ

, σ be two
Serre-invariant stability conditions on A X and Ku(Y ) respectively. Then the equivalence in
Theorem 1.1 induces the following isomorphisms between Bridgeland moduli spaces:
∼
=
→ Mσ
(A X , a
) where a
, a are (−1)-classes in A X
(1) (Corollary 4.2) Mσ (Ku(Y ), a) −
and Ku(Y ) respectively.
∼
=
(2) (Corollary 8.5) When d  = 4, we have Mss

σ (Ku(Y ), b) −
→ Mss
σ
(A X , b ) where b , b are
two (−4)-classes in A X and Ku(Y ) respectively.
∼
=
(3) (Theorem 8.4) When d = 4, we have Mss
σ (Ku(Y ), 2v) −
→ Mss
σ
(A X , 2s).

1.3 Related work

The first example of stability conditions constructed in the Kuznetsov component of a cubic
threefold is given in [9]. After a direct construction of stability conditions in the Kuznetsov
components of a series Fano threefolds in [7], the various Bridgeland moduli space of stable
objects in the Kuznetsov components of index two and three Fano threefolds are studied in
[1, 8, 11, 35, 36]. In [35], the Fano surface of lines on Yd , d  = 1 is identified with moduli
space of stable objects with (−1)-class v in Ku(Yd ), where d = 1 case is treated in [36].
In [24, 40], the authors dealt with Bridgeland moduli spaces for Gushel-Mukai threefolds,
and used them to study several conjectures. In particular, the Bridgeland moduli spaces of
stable objects with (−1)-classes in A X 10 are realized as Cm (X ) and M X (2, 1, 5), while in our
note, in Theorem 1.2, we realize Bridgeland moduli space of stable objects of (−1)-classes
in A X 14 as C (X ), M X (2, 1, 6) and M X (2, 1, −6).
In our note, we identify moduli space of instanton sheaves with minimal charge on Yd , d =
3, 4, 5 with moduli space of (semi)stable objects of (−4)-class 2v in Ku(Yd ). On cubic
threefolds, these Bridgeland moduli spaces were studied in [29] via derived category of
coherent sheaves of P2 with the action of a sheaf of Clifford algebras, and on Y4 , Y5 these
were studied in [37, 39] via classical stability of sheaves on curves and representations of
quivers.
When the first draft of our paper was finished, we learned that Xuqiang Qin independently
proved similar results in [38] to Theorem 7.6. He studied MYinst d
for d = 3, 4, 5 and showed
the isomorphism between MYinst and M ss (Ku(Y ), 2v) for a family of stability conditions K
d σ d
constructed in [35], while we show this for every Serre invariant stability condition defined
on Ku(Yd ). Thus, we use slightly different techniques in proving Theorem 7.6. In [38], the
author applies wall-crossing techniques developed in [8, 35], while we have to not only use
wall-crossing techniques but also use weak Mukai lemma to prove stability for all Serre-
invariant stability conditions. He also showed the stability of instanton bundles of minimal
charge, while we prove this for all instanton sheaves in Proposition 7.2. Moreover, in [38],

123
808 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

the author makes use of the notion of 2-Gieseker stability while we do not but apply more
elementary techniques. In addition we prove Lemmas 7.11, 7.12 and Proposition 7.13 to
make the theorem work for every Serre-invariant stability condition.

1.4 Further questions

It is an interesting question to classify instanton sheaves on a general quartic double solid Y2

and prove similar result as Theorem 7.6. On the other hand, in [40], it is shown that Ku(Y2 )
is not equivalent to A X 10 , so it is interesting to study the relation between Bridgeland moduli
spaces Mσ (Ku(Y2 ), 2v) and Mσ
(A X 10 , 2s) for Serre invariant stability conditions.

1.5 Structure of the paper

In Sects. 2 and 3, we recall some basic definitions and properties of Kuznetsov component
and (weak)stability conditions. Fix Serre-invariant stability conditions σ and σ
on Ku(Y )
and A X respectively. In Sect. 4, we first show that all moduli spaces of stable objects of
(−1)-classes in Ku(Y ) and A X are isomorphic. Then we show that there is an isomorphism
C (X ) ∼
= Mσ
(A X , s) for every X := X 4d+2 and d = 3, 4, 5. In Sect. 5 we focus on Y3 and
X 14 . Using similar arguments in Sect. 4, we realize three moduli spaces of stable objects
of (−1)-classes as classical moduli space. In Sect. 6 we first recall some definitions and
properties of instanton sheaves, and show that the instantonic condition is closely related
to the walls of Bridgeland stability conditions. In Sect. 7, we use the results in Sect. 6 to
show that for Y := Yd there are isomorphisms MYinst → Mss σ (Ku(Y ), 2v) when d  = 1, 2
and open immersions when d = 1, 2. In Sect. 8 we show that for every pair (Yd , X 4d+2 ) ∈
Z d ⊂ MF 2d × MF 14d+2 and d = 3, 4, 5, the equivalence Ku(Yd ) ∼ = A X 4d+2 gives an
isomorphism Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2v) ∼ = Mσ
(A X , 2s). As a corollary, when d = 3, 5 we show that
all moduli spaces of semistable objects of (−4)-classes in Ku(Y ) and A X are isomorphic.
As an application, in Sect. 9 we show that for X := X 4d+2 and d = 3, 4, 5 the projection
functor gives an isomorphism M Xss (2, 0, 4) ∼
= Mss σ
(A X , 2s).

2 Preliminaries

2.1 Prime Fano threefolds

A complex smooth projective variety with ample anticanonical bundle is called Fano. A Fano
variety is called prime if it has Picard number 1. For a prime Fano variety X , we can choose
a unique ample divisor such that Pic(X ) ∼ = Z · H , which is called the fundamental divisor
of X . The index of a prime Fano variety is the least integer i such that −K X = i · H . The
degree of a prime Fano variety is d := H 3 . The genus g is defined as 2g − 2 = d.

2.2 Derived category of Fano threefolds

Let Yd be a prime Fano threefold of index 2 and degree d. We consider the semiorthogonal
decomposition of Yd given by

Db (Yd ) = Ku(Yd ), OYd , OYd (1)

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 809

The numerical Grothendieck group N (Ku(Yd )) of Ku(Yd ) is a rank 2 lattice spanned by

 
1 2 1 2 1 1
v := [I L ] = 1 − H , w := H − H + − H3
d 2 6 d

where I L is an ideal sheaf of a line L on Yd . The Euler form is given by

 
−1 −1
(2.1)
1 − d −d

In the case of index one, the semiorthogonal decomposition of X 2g−2 of even genus 6 ≤ g ≤
12 are given in [25, 26].

Db (X 2g−2 ) = Ku(X 2g−2 ), E , O X 2g−2 

where E is a rank 2 stable vector bundle with ch(E ) = 2 − H + g−4 10−g

2 L + 12 P. However
we will use another semiorthogonal decomposition in [28, Section B.2], which is given by

Db (X 2g−2 ) = A X 2g−2 , O X 2g−2 , E ∨ 

The numerical Grothendieck group N (A X 2g−2 ) of A X 2g−2 is a rank 2 lattice spanned by

 
1 g 16 − g
s := [IC ] = 1 − H 2 , t := H − +1 L − P
g−1 2 12

where IC is an ideal sheaf of a conic C on X 2g−2 . The Euler form is given by

 
−1 −2
(2.2)
1 − g2 1 − g

As noted in [26, Proposition 3.9], the Chern character map identify the numerical
Grothendieck group with the lattice generated by Chern characters of some sheaves. We
will use notations of numerical class and Chern character alternatively.
Up to sign, there are three (−1)-classes s, 3s − t and 2s − t in N (A X 14 ), and three (−1)-
classes v, 2v − w and v − w in N (Ku(Y3 )). And there are three (−4)-classes, which are the
twice of three (−1)-classes.
It is also easy to see that there are infinitely many (0)-class, (−1)-class and (−4)-class, and
no (−2)-class and (−3)-class in Ku(Y4 ) ∼ = A X 18 ; And there are infinitely many (−1)-class
and (−4)-class, and no (0)-class, (−2)-class and (−3)-class in Ku(Y5 ) ∼ = A X 22 .
We also need some results from [12, 28, 33]. Recall that a bundle F on a polarised smooth
projective variety (X , H ) of dimension n is called arithmetically Cohen–Macaulay (ACM)
if H i (F( j H )) = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 and all j.

Lemma 2.1 Let Db (X 2g−2 ) = A X 2g−2 , O X , E ∨  as above, then

(1) For each g = 8, 10, 12 there is a closed immersion X 2g−2 → Gr(2, g2 + 2) such that E
is the pullback of the tautological bundle on Gr(2, g2 + 2).
(2) E ∨ is the unique rank 2 stable vector bundle with c1 = H , c2 = g+2 2 L, c3 = 0, called
Mukai bundle. Moreover, E ∨ is globally generated and ACM.
(3) hom(E ∨ , E ∨ ) = 1, exti (E ∨ , E ∨ ) = 0, ∀i ≥ 1 and h i (X , E ∨ (−1)) = 0 for all i.

123
810 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

2.3 Moduli spaces of sheaves

In this subsection, we recall some definitions about (semi)stable sheaves. We refer to the
book [22] for a more detailed account of notions.
Let (X , H ) be a smooth polarized n-dimensional projective variety. Recall that a torsion-
free sheaf F is Gieseker-semistable if for any coherent subsheaf E with 0 < rk(E) < rk(F),
one has p(E,t) p(F,t)
rk(E) ≤ rk(F) for t  0. The sheaf F is called Gieseker-stable if the inequality
above is always strict.
(F)H n−1
The slope of a sheaf F with positive rank is defined as μ(F) := c1rk(F)H n . We recall
that a torsion-free coherent sheaf F is μ-semistable if for any coherent subsheaf E with
0 < rk(E) < rk(F), on has μ(E) ≤ μ(F). The sheaf F is called μ-stable if the above
inequality is always strict. The two notions are related as following:

μ − stable ⇒ Gieseker stable ⇒ Gieseker semistable ⇒ μ − semistable

We denote the moduli space of S-equivalence classes of rank r torsion-free Gieseker-

semistable sheaves with Chern classes c1 , c2 and c3 = 0 by M Xss (r , c1 , c2 ). And we denote
the moduli space of S-equivalence classes of rank r torsion-free Gieseker-stable sheaves with
Chern classes c1 , c2 and c3 = 0 by M X (r , c1 , c2 ).

3 Review on Bridgeland stability conditions

In this section, we recall the definition and some properties of (weak)stability conditions on
triangulated category.

3.1 (Weak)stability conditions

Let T be a triangulated category.

Definition 3.1 A heart of a bounded t-structure on T is a full subcategory A ⊂ T such that

(1) for A, B ∈ A and n < 0 we have Hom(A, B[n]) = 0, and
(2) for every object F ∈ T there exists a sequence of morphisms
φ1 φm
0 = F0 −→ F1 → · · · −→ Fm = F

such that cone(φi ) is of form Ai [ki ] for some sequence k1 > k2 > · · · > km of integers
and objects Ai ∈ A. We denote Ai by H−ki (F).

Definition 3.2 Let A be an abelian category. A weak stability function on A is a group

homomorphism Z : K (A) → C such that for every non-zero object A ∈ A, we have
Im Z (A) ≥ 0, and Im Z (A) = 0 ⇒ ReZ (A) ≤ 0. We say Z is a stability function if
Im Z (A) ≥ 0, and Im Z (A) = 0 ⇒ ReZ (A) < 0.

Fix a finite rank lattice  and a surjective homomorphism v : K (A)  .

Definition 3.3 A weak stability condition on T with respect to the lattice  is a pair σ =
(A, Z ), where Z :  → C is a group homomorphism and A is the heart of a bounded
t-structure, satisfying the following conditions:

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 811

v Z
(1) The composition K (A) = K (T ) →  → C is a weak stability function on A; we
denote Z (A) := Z (v(A)). We define the slope for any object A ∈ A as
ReZ (A)
μσ (A) := −
Im Z (A)
for Im Z (A) > 0 and μσ (A) := +∞ otherwise.
(2) A non-zero object A ∈ A is called σ -semistable (resp. σ -stable) if for every non-zero
proper subobject B ⊂ A, we have μσ (B) ≤ μσ (A) (resp. μσ (B) < μσ (A)). An object
F ∈ T is called σ -(semi)stable if F[k] ∈ A is σ -(semi)stable for some k ∈ Z.
(3) Every object A ∈ A has a Harder-Narasimhan filtration in σ -semistble objects.
(4) There is a quadratic form Q on  ⊗ R such that Q|Ker(Z ) is negative definite, and
Q(A) ≥ 0 for all σ -semistable A ∈ A.

A weak stability condition σ = (A, Z ) on T with respect to the lattice  is called a

Bridgeland stability condition if Z ◦ v is a stability function on A.

Definition 3.4 The phase of a σ -semistable object A ∈ A is

1
φ(A) := arg(Z (A)) ∈ (0, 1]
π
and for A[n], we set φ(A[n]) := φ(A) + n.
A slicing Pσ of T is a collection of full additive subcategories Pσ (φ) ⊂ T for φ ∈ R,
such that the subcategory Pσ (φ) is given by the zero object and all σ -semistable objects with
phase φ.

We both use the notation σ = (Pσ , Z ) and σ = (Aσ , Z ) for a (weak)stability condition
with heart Aσ := Pσ ((0, 1]), where Pσ is a slicing and Pσ ((0, 1]) is the extension closure
of subcategories {Pσ (φ) | φ ∈ (0, 1]}.
We denote by Stab(T ) the set of stability conditions on T . The universal covering space
GL+ ˜ +
2 (R) of GL2 (R) has a right action on Stab(T ), defined in [14, Lemma 8.2].
Starting from a weak stability condition σ = (A, Z ) on T , we can produce a new heart
of a bounded t-structure, by tilting A. Let μ ∈ R, we define following subcategoies of A:
Tσμ := {A ∈ A : all HN factors B of A have slope μσ (B) > μ}
Fσμ := {A ∈ A : all HN factors B of A have slope μσ (B) ≤ μ}
μ μ μ
Thus by [19], the category Aσ := Tσ , Fσ [1] is the heart of a bounded t-structure on T .
μ
We say that the heart Aσ is obtained by tilting A with respect to the weak stability condition
σ at the slope μ.

3.2 Weak stability condition on Db (X)

Let X be a smooth projective variety of dimension n and H be an ample divisor on X .

Following [7, Section 2], we review the construction of weak stability conditions on Db (X ).
For any j ∈ {0, 1, 2, ..., n}, we consider the lattice  H ∼
j
= Z j+1 generated by

(H n ch0 , H n−1 ch1 , ..., H n− j ch j ) ∈ Q j+1

j j
with surjective map v H : K (X ) →  H induced by Chern character. The pair σ H :=
(Coh(X ), Z H ) where Z H : 1H → C is given by Z H (F) := −H n−1 ch1 (F) + i H n ch0 (F)

123
812 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

defines a weak stability condition on Db (X ) with respect to the lattice 1H (see [7, Example
2.8]). Moreover, any μ H -semistable sheaf F satisfies the following Bogomolov–Gieseker
inequality:

H (F) := (H n−1 ch1 (F))2 − 2H n ch0 (F) · H n−2 ch2 (F) ≥ 0.
Given a parameter β ∈ R, we denote by Cohβ (X ) the heart of bounded t-structure obtained
by tilting the weak stability condition σ H at the slope μ H = β. For F ∈ Db (X ), we set
chβ (F) := e−β ch(F). Explicitly, for each non-negative integer k we have

β

k
(−β)i H i
chk (F) = chk−i (F).
i!
i=0
Proposition 3.5 [7, Proposition 2.12] For any (α, β) ∈ R>0 × R, the pair σα,β =
(Cohβ (X ), Z α,β ) with
1 2 n β β β
Z α,β (F) := α H ch0 (F) − H n−2 ch2 (F) + i H n−1 ch1 (F)
2
defines a weak stability condition on Db (X ) with respect to 2H . The quadratic form Q can be
given by the discriminant
H . Moreover, these weak stability conditions vary continuously
as (α, β) ∈ R>0 × R varies.
We can visualize the weak stability conditions σα,β in the upper half plane R>0 × R.
Definition 3.6 Let v be a vector in 2H .
(1) A numerical wall for v is the set of pairs (α, β) ∈ R>0 × R such that there is a vector
w ∈ 2H verifying the numerical relation μα,β (v) = μα,β (w).
(2) A wall for E ∈ Cohβ (X ) is a numerical wall for v := ch≤2 (E), where ch≤2 (E) :=
(ch0 (E), ch1 (E), ch2 (E)), such that for every (α, β) on the wall there is an exact sequence
of semistable objects 0 → F → E → G → 0 in Cohβ (X ) such that μα,β (F) =
μα,β (E) = μα,β (G) gives rise to the numerical wall.
(3) A wall for E ∈ Cohβ (X ) is called an actual wall if E becomes unstable after crossing
the wall.
(4) A chamber is a connected component in the complement of the union of walls in the
upper half-plane.
An important property is that the weak stability conditions σα,β satisfy well-behaved
wall-crossing: walls respect to a class v ∈ 2H are locally finite. By [6, Proposition B.5], if
v = ch≤2 (E) with E ∈ Cohβ (X ), then the stability of E remains unchanged as (α, β) varies
in a chamber.
According to [31], a numerical wall for v ∈ 2H is either a semicircle centered along the
β-axis or a vertical wall parallel to the α-axis. No two walls intersect.
Finally, we recall the following variant of the weak stability conditions of Proposition 3.5,
which will be used frequently. Fix μ ∈ R and let u be the unit vector in upper half plane
μ
with μ = − Imu
Reu
. We denote by Cohα,β (X ) the heart obtained by tilting the weak stability
β
condition σα,β = (Coh (X ), Z α,β ) at the slope μα,β = μ.
μ μ μ
Proposition 3.7 [7, Proposition 2.15] The pair σα,β := (Cohα,β (X ), Z α,β ), where

μ 1
Z α,β := Z α,β
u
is a weak stability condition on Db (X ).

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 813

3.3 Serre-invariant stability conditions on Kuznetsov component

In this subsection, we recall some results in [35], which we will use frequently in the next
sections. Assume that T is a triangulated category with the Serre functor ST .
Definition 3.8 A stability σ on T is called Serre-invariant if ST (σ ) = σ · g̃ for some
g̃ ∈ GL+ ˜
2 (R).

Recall that Ku(Y4 ) ∼

= A X 18 ∼= Db (C2 ) and Ku(Y5 ) ∼
= A X 22 ∼
= Db (Q 3 ). Here C2 is a
smooth curve of genus 2 and Q 3 is the 3-Kronecker quiver (see [28]). Stability conditions
on these two categories are studied in [16, 32].
Following [35], we define
1 1
V := {(α, β) ∈ R>0 × R | − ≤ β < 0, α < −β, or − 1 < β < − , α ≤ 1 + β}
2 2
+˜
and let K be the orbit of V by GL2 (R). We set Z (α, β) := Z α,β |Ku(Y ) , and A(α, β) :=
0

Coh0α,β (Y ) ∩ Ku(Y ). We define a lattice 2H ,Ku(Y ) := I m(K (Ku(Y )) → K (Y ) → 2H ) ∼

=
Z2 .
Theorem 3.9 [7], [35, Theorem 3.3, Proposition 3.6, Corollary 5.5] Let Y be a prime Fano
threefold of index 2.
(1) The pair σ (α, β) := (A(α, β), Z (α, β)) is a Bridgeland stability condition on Ku(Y )
with respect to 2H ,Ku(Y ) ∼
= Z2 for every (α, β) ∈ V .
(2) Fix 0 < α < 1 . For every (α, β) ∈ V , there is a g̃ ∈ GL+˜ (R) such that σ (α, β) =
0 2 2
g̃. Hence K = V · GL+
σ (α0 , − 2 ) · ˜ +˜
2 (R) = σ (α0 , − 2 ) · GL2 (R).
1 1

(3) Every stability condition in K is Serre-invariant.

Thus via the equivalences Ku(Yd ) ∼ = A X 4d+2 for d = 3, 4, 5, since this equivalence
commutes with Serre functor, a Serre-invariant stability condition on Ku(Yd ) induces a
Serre-invariant stability condition on A X 4d+2 .
As shown in [35, Section 5.2], there are some useful numerical properties for Serre-
invariant stability condition on Ku(Y ). Note that in the proof of following lemmas in [35],
∼
u(Y ) = [5], hence via the equivalence  in
the only properties of Y they used is that SK 3

Theorem [28], these properties also hold for Serre-invariant stability conditions on A X .
For X = X 14 , we have:
Lemma 3.10 For every Serre-invariant stability condition σ on A X 14 , if F ∈ A X 14 is
a σ -semistable object of phase φ(F), then the phase of SA X 14 (F) satisfies φ(F) <
φ(SA X 14 (F)) < φ(F) + 2. In particular, we have Ext2 (F, F) = 0.
Lemma 3.11 The heart of a Serre-invariant stability condition σ on A X 14 has homological
dimension 2.
Lemma 3.12 For every Serre-invariant stability condition σ = (A, Z ) on A X 14 and every
non-zero object F ∈ A, we have χ(F, F) ≤ −1 and ext1 (F, F) ≥ 2.
Lemma 3.13 (Weak Mukai Lemma) Let σ be a Serre-invariant stability condition on A X 2g−2 .
Let A → F → B be a triangle in the heart Aσ such that hom(A, B) = Hom(B, A[2]) = 0.
Then
ext1 (A, A) + ext 1 (B, B) ≤ ext 1 (F, F)

123
814 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

When g = 8, as in [35], Hom(B, A[2]) = 0 if σ -semistable factors of A have phases

greater or equal than the phases of the σ -semistable factors of B.
When g = 10 and 12, since every heart of a stability condition on A2g−2 has homological
dimension 1, hence automatically we have Hom(B, A[2]) = 0.
The same argument in [35, Lemma 5.13] shows that:

Lemma 3.14 Let X := X 14 or X 22 . Let σ be a Serre-invariant stability condition on A X .

Then every F ∈ A X with ext 1 (F, F) = 2 is σ -stable. If X = X 18 , then every F ∈ A X with
ext 1 (F, F) = 1 or χ(F, F) = −1 and ext 1 (F, F) = 2 is σ -stable.

Theorem 3.15 [35, Theorem 1.2] Let X := X 14 , X 18 or X 22 . Every non-empty moduli space
of σ
-stable objects in A X with respect to a Serre-invariant stability condition σ
is smooth.

4 Isomorphisms between Bridgeland moduli spaces of (−1)-classes

In this section, we fix (Y , X ) = (Yd , X 4d+2 ) ∈ Z d ⊂ MF 2d × MF 14d+2 as in [28] for

d = 3, 4, 5. We denote the closed point in Mσ
that corresponds to E ∈ A X by [E].
∼
=
Proposition 4.1 The equivalence  : Ku(Y ) −
→ A X in Theorem 1.1 induces an isomorphism
between moduli spaces
∼
=
Mσ (Ku(Y ), 1 − L) −
→ Mσ
(A X , 1 − 2L)
such that maps [E] to [(E)] on the level of closed points. Here σ, σ
are Serre-invariant
stability conditions on Ku(Y ), A X respectively. In particular, Mσ
(A X , 1−2L) is irreducible
and smooth of dimension 2.

Proof From [35, Theorem 1.1] we know that (Y ) ∼ = Mσ (Ku(Y ), 1 − L), hence there
is a universal family on Mσ (Ku(Y ), 1 − L). Since  is of Fourier-Mukai type, the same
argument in Lemma 4.3 shows that  induces a morphism such that maps [E] to [(E)]. By
Lemma 3.14 we know that this morphism is a bijection between closed points. Now since 
is an equivalence, the induced morphism is étale. Therefore, this morphism is bijective and
étale, which is an isomorphism. The last statement also follows from [35, Theorem 1.1].  

Corollary 4.2 Let a be a (−1)-class in N (Ku(Y )) and a

be a (−1)-class in N (A X ). Then the
Bridgeland moduli spaces Mσ (Ku(Y ), a) ∼ = Mσ
(A X , a
) for any Serre invariant stability

condition σ, σ on Ku(Y ), A X respectively.

Proof (1) When d = 3, all (−1)-classes in A X 14 up to signs are [IC ] = 1 − 2L, [SA X (IC )]
and [SA 2 (I )], and all (−1)-classes in Ku(Y ) up to signs are [I ] = 1−L, [S
X C 3 L Ku(Y3 ) (I L )]
and [SK 2 (I )]. Now σ and σ
are Serre-invariant stability conditions, thus Bridgeland
u(Y3 ) L
moduli spaces of stable objects with these (−1)-classes are all isomorphic.
(2) When d = 4, there are infinitely many (−1)-classes in N (Ku(Y4 )) and N (A X 18 ) respec-
tively. Note that Ku(Y4 ) ∼= A X 18 ∼= D b (C2 ). All (−1)-classes in Ku(Y4 ) are permuted by
rotation functor R : E  → LOY (E ⊗ OY (H )) and the functor preserves the stability con-
ditions on Ku(Y4 ) by [35, Proposition 5.7]. Then by similar arguments in Proposition 4.1,
all the moduli spaces are isomorphic.
(3) d = 5. Let xv + yw ∈ N (Ku(Y5 )) be a (−1)-class, then the pair of integers (x, y) are
solutions of equation x 2 +5x y +5y 2 = 1. Up to a linear transform: X = x + 25 y, Y = 21 y,

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 815

it is the Pell’s equation x 2 − 5y 2 = 1, which is a Diophantine equation of the form

x 2 − N y 2 = 1 with a positive non-square integer N . It is a norm equation
√ in the sense√that
all solutions of the equation is the set of all elements in the ring Q( 5) of the form x + 5y
whose norm is 1. Then by Dirichlet unit theorem, the set of the √ solutions is an index 2
subgroup of the unit group of the ring of algebraic integers in Q( √5), which is isomorphic
to Z(up to sign), generated by the fundamental unit η = 21 (3 + 5) by [15]. Thus all the
integer solutions (x, y) are parametrised by ηi , i ∈ Z, up to sign. On the other hand, the
linear isometry of N (Ku(Y5 )) on (−1)-classes, given by (x, y)  → (−4x − 5y, x + y) is
induced by the rotation functor R : Ku(Y5 ) → Ku(Y5 ). It is straightforward to check its
action on (x, y)(representing a (−1)-class) corresponds to the multiplication by η. This
means that all (−1)-classes in N (Ku(Y5 )) are given by action of rotation functor R on
1 − L(up to sign). Thus desired result follows from similar arguments in Proposition 4.1.



4.1 Hilbert schemes of conics as Bridgeland moduli spaces

In this subsection, we show that there is an isomorphism between the Fano surface of conics
C (X ) and the Bridgeland moduli space
∼
=
p : C (X ) → Mσ
(A X , 1 − 2L).
for X := X 14 , X 18 or X 22 and every Serre-invariant stability condition σ
on A X .
Let σ
be a Serre-invariant Bridgeland stability condition on A X . First, we construct a
natural morphism p : C (X ) → Mσ
(A X , 1 − 2L):

Lemma 4.3 The projection functor pr induces a morphism

p : C (X ) → Mσ
(A X , 1 − 2L)
where p([C]) = [pr(IC )] = [IC ] on the level of closed points.

Proof From [28, Lemma B.3.3] we know that IC ∈ A X for every conic C on X . Hence
pr(IC ) = IC . On the other hand, we know that ext 1 (IC , IC ) = 2, hence by Lemma 3.14 IC
is in the heart Aσ
up to a shift and σ
-stable. Similar arguments in [9, Section 5.1] and [1,
Section 5.1] shows that this shift can be chosen uniformly.
Now we are going to show that there is a natural morphism p induced by functor pr.
Since the projection functor pr : Db (X ) → A X is of Fourier-Mukai type, we can assume
pr
K ∈ Db (X × X ) is the integral kernel and ψ K : Db (X ) − → A X → Db (X ) be the Fourier-
Mukai transform defined by K . Let I be the universal ideal sheaf on C (X ) × X . We define
ψ
:= ψ K × idC (X ) = ψ K O
: Db (X × C (X )) → Db (X × C (X ))
C (X )

Then ψ
(I ) is a family of objects in A X parametrised by C (X ), which defines a morphism
p : C (X ) → Mσ
(A X , 1 − 2L).
To show p([C]) is given by pr(IC ) for any closed point c = [C] ∈ C (X ), we denote
i c : {c} × X → C (X ) × X . Then we have: ψ K (i c∗ (I )) ∼
= pr(IC ) and
i c∗ (ψ K O
(I )) ∼
= ψic∗ K O
(IC ) ∼
= ψ K (IC ) = pr(IC )
C (X ) C (X )

This means p([C]) is given by [pr(IC )]. 



Next, we show that p is an isomorphism.

123
816 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

Proposition 4.4 The morphism p : C (X ) → Mσ

(A X , 1 − 2L) defined in Lemma 4.3 is an
isomorphism.
Proof It is clear that p is injective. The tangent map d p at a closed point [C] is given by
d p[C] : Ext1 (IC , IC ) → Ext1 (pr(IC ), pr(IC ))
Since IC is already in A X , we have pr(IC ) = IC . Hence we know that d p is an isomorphism
at every closed point, and therefore p is étale.
Now since C (X ) is projective and Mσ
(A X , 1 − 2L) is proper, p is projective. Thus p is
an embedding. But Mσ
(A X , 1 − 2L) is irreducible and smooth by Proposition 4.1, hence
p is actually an isomorphism. 

Corollary 4.5 If F ∈ A X is a σ
-stable object for some Serre-invariant stability conditions
σ
on A X with [F] = [IC ] ∈ N (A X ), then F ∼= IC [2k] for some conics C on X and k ∈ Z.

5 Bridgeland moduli spaces of (−1)-classes on X14 and Y3

In this section we fix X := X 14 and Y := Y3 . We show that M X (2, 1, 6) ∼ = Mσ

(A X 14 , 3s −t)
and M X (2, −1, 6) ∼ = Mσ
(A X 14 , 2s −t) on X . And we have MYb (2, 1, 2) ∼
= Mσ (Ku(Y ), v−
w) and MYb (2, −1, 2) ∼ = Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2v − w) on Y .

5.1 MX (2, 1, 6) as Bridgeland moduli space

As shown in [23], there are two classes of sheaves in M X (2, 1, 6): globally generated locally
free sheaves and non-locally free sheaves.
We first deal with locally free sheaves. When E ∈ M X (2, 1, 6) is a locally free sheaf, by
[23, Section 5.2] we have an exact sequence: 0 → O X → E → IC (1) → 0 where C is an
elliptic sextic.
First, we determine the image of E under the projection functor pr. Recall that for a rank
two locally free sheaf F, we have F ∨ ∼ = F ⊗ det F ∨ .
Lemma 5.1 Let E ∈ M X (2, 1, 6) be a locally free sheaf, then we have:
(1) h 0 (E) = 5, h 1 (E) = h 2 (E) = h 3 (E) = 0.
(2) h 0 (E ∨ ) = h 1 (E ∨ ) = h 2 (E ∨ ) = h 3 (E ∨ ) = 0.
(3) hom(E, E) = 1, ext 1 (E, E) = 2, ext 2 (E, E) = ext 3 (E, E) = 0.
Proof (1) is from [23, Lemma 5.1, Proposition 5.2] and the fact χ(E) = 5.
For (2), by Serre duality we have h 1 (E ∨ ) = h 2 (E(−1)) = h 2 (E ∨ ), hence h 1 (E ∨ ) =
h (E ∨ ) = 0 by [23, Proposition 5.2]. And h 0 (E ∨ ) = 0 from stability of E, therefore by
2

Serre duality we have h 0 (E ∨ ) = h 3 (E(−1)) = h 3 (E ∨ ) = 0.

(3) is from [23, Proposition 5.10]. 

Lemma 5.2 Let E ∈ M X (2, 1, 6) be a locally free sheaf, then we have exti (E ∨ , E) = 0 for
all i.
Proof From the stability and Serre duality, we know exti (E ∨ , E) = 0 for i = 0, 3. Since E
is globally generated, a general section of E will vanish along an elliptic sextic C in Gr(2, 6).
Then we have an exact sequence as in [23]:
0 → O X → E → IC (1) → 0

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 817

Applying Hom(E ∨ , −) to this sequence, and since exti (E ∨ , O X ) = 0 for every i, we have
Exti (E ∨ , E) = Exti (E ∨ , IC (1)) = H i (X , E ∨ ⊗ IC ), ∀i ≥ 0.
As in [23, Section 5.2], E ∨ |C is split of type (3, 3) or unsplit. When E ∨ |C is split, it is clear
that h 0 (E ∨ |C ) = 6. When E ∨ |C is unsplit, in this case E ∨ |C is the tensor of a degree 3 line
bundle N with a unique vector bundle F obtained as a non-trivial extension of OC . Thus
E ∨ |C is a non-trivial extension of N , which gives h 0 (E ∨ |C ) = 6. Now if the restriction map
H 0 (E ∨ ) → H 0 (E ∨ |C ) is not injective, then C is contained in a copy of Gr(2, 5). But this
is impossible since C is of degree 6 and Gr(2, 5) has degree 5. Then the restriction map
H 0 (E ∨ ) → H 0 (E ∨ |C ) is an isomorphism from the injectivity. Now applying (X , E ∨ ⊗ −)
to the standard exact sequence of C, we obtain Exti (E ∨ , E) = H i (E ∨ ⊗ IC ) = 0. 

Therefore by Lemma 5.2, we have pr(E) = L O X (E). From Lemma 5.1 we know that
pr(E) = L O X (E) is given by ker(ev)[1], where ev is the evaluation map:
ev
0 → ker(ev) → H 0 (E) ⊗ O X −
→E →0 (5.1)
It is clear that ch(ker(ev)) = 3− H − L + 23 P. We are going to check that pr(E) = ker(ev)[1]
is σ
-stable.
Lemma 5.3 We have ext 1 (ker(ev), ker(ev)) = 2. Hence pr(E) = ker(ev)[1] ∈ A X is σ
-
stable with respect to every Serre-invariant stability condition σ
on A X .
Proof The second statement follows from the first one and Lemma 3.14, hence we only need
to show the first statement.
Tensoring O X (−1) with the sequence 5.1 and taking cohomology, we have h i (ker(ev)(−1))
= 5 · h i (O(−1)) for all i by Lemma 5.1. Hence we know h 3 (ker(ev)(−1)) = 5 and
h i (ker(ev)(−1)) = 0 for i  = 3. Thus by Serre duality we have hom(ker(ev), H 0 (E) ⊗
O X ) = 25, exti (ker(ev), H 0 (E) ⊗ O X ) = 0 for i  = 0.
By Serre duality we have Exti (ker(ev), E) = Ext3−i (E(1), ker(ev)). Again by Serre
duality, we have exti (E(1), H 0 (E) ⊗ O X ) = 0 when i  = 3 and ext 3 (E(1), H 0 (E) ⊗
O X ) = 25. Also we have Exti (E(1), E) = Ext 3−i (E, E), hence by Lemma 5.1 we
know that hom(E(1), E) = ext 1 (E(1), E) = 0. Therefore applying Hom(E(1), −) to
the exact sequence 5.1 and taking long exact sequence, we obtain hom(E(1), ker(ev)) =
ext1 (E(1), ker(ev)) = ext 2 (E(1), ker(ev)) = 0.
Finally, applying Hom(ker(ev), −) to the sequence 5.1, we obtain a long exact sequence.
From computations above, we have exti (ker(ev), ker(ev)) = 0 for i = 2, 3. Since
χ(ker(ev), ker(ev)) = −1, we only need to   ker(ev)) = 1. Note that
show hom(ker(ev),
H 0 (X , ker(ev)) =0, then via the inclusion p ker(ev) → p−1 ker(ev)⊗ H 0 (E) we
know that H 0 (X , p ker(ev)) = 0 for all p ≥ 1. And we have −1 < μ( p ker(ev)) =
pμ(ker(ev)) < 0 for every 1 ≤ p ≤ 2. Therefore ker(ev) is a stable bundle by Hoppe’s
criterion [21] (see also [2, Theorem 1.2]). Hence we obtain that hom(ker(ev), ker(ev)) = 1
and ext1 (ker(ev), ker(ev)) = 2. 

When E ∈ M X (2, 1, 6) is not locally free, by [23, Proposition 5.11], there is an exact
sequence:
0 → E → T → OL → 0 (5.2)
where L is a line on X . By [13, Proposition 3.5], we know T is a rank 2 globally generated
stable vector bundle with c1 (T ) = H , c2 (T ) = 5L. Thus from Proposition 2.1, we have
T ∼= E ∨.

123
818 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

Lemma 5.4 Let E ∈ M X (2, 1, 6) be a non-locally free sheaf, then we have:

(1) h 0 (E) = 5, h 1 (E) = h 2 (E) = h 3 (E) = 0.
(2) h 0 (E(−1)) = h 1 (E(−1)) = h 2 (E(−1)) = h 3 (E(−1)) = 0.
(3) hom(E, E) = 1, ext 1 (E, E) = 2, ext 2 (E, E) = ext 3 (E, E) = 0.

Proof (1) and (2) both follow from Lemma 2.1 and the above exact sequence 5.2. (3) is from
[23, Proposition 5.12]. 


Lemma 5.5 Let E ∈ M X (2, 1, 6) be a non-locally free sheaf, then we have Exti (E ∨ , E) = 0
for every i.

Proof By Proposition 2.1, we know ext 1 (T , T ) = ext 2 (T , T ) = ext 3 (T , T ) = 0 and

hom(T , T ) = 1. From [23, Proposition 5.11] we have T ∨ ⊗ O L ∼ = O L ⊕ O L (−1), hence
we obtain hom(T , O L ) = 1 and ext1 (T , O L ) = 0. Since Hom(T , T ) → Hom(T , O L ) is
induced by the surjective map T  O L , this map is non-trivial, hence for dimensional reason
it is an isomorphism. Thus applying Hom(T , −) to the sequence 5.2 above, from the long
exact sequence we obtain that Exti (T , E) = 0, ∀i ≥ 0. 


Therefore by Lemma 5.5, pr(E) = L O X (E), which is given by ker(ev)[1], where ev is

the evaluation map:
ev
0 → ker(ev) → H 0 (E) ⊗ O X −
→ E → 0.
Since H 0 (E) ⊗ E is locally free and E is torsion free, by [20, Proposition 1.1] we know that
in this case ker(ev) is reflexive. Now we want to check pr(E) = ker(ev)[1] is σ
-stable. This
is almost the same as locally free case:

Lemma 5.6 We have ext 1 (ker(ev), ker(ev)) = 2. Hence pr(E) = ker(ev)[1] ∈ A X is σ

-
stable with respect to every Serre-invariant stability condition σ
on A X .

Proof The second statement follows from Lemma 3.14, hence we only need to show
the first statement. Using Lemma 5.4, the same arguments in Lemma 5.3 shows that
exti (ker(ev), ker(ev)) = 0 for i = 2, 3. Since χ(ker(ev), ker(ev)) = −1, we only need
to show hom(ker(ev), ker(ev)) = 1.
Note that ker(ev) is reflexive, hence is determined by the complement of any closed subset
of codimension ≥ 2 (see for example, [20]). And since the non-locally free locus of ker(ev)
has codimension ≥ 3, without loss of generality we can assume ker(ev) is locally free. Hence
the same argument in Lemma 5.3 shows that hom(ker(ev), ker(ev)) = 1. 


Lemma 5.7 The projection functor induces a morphism

q : M X (2, 1, 6) → Mσ
(A X , 3s − t)
for every Serre-invariant stability condition σ
on A X , such that q([E]) = [pr(E)].

Proof Since χ(E, E) = −1, by [22, Theorem 4.6.5] we know M X (2, 1, 6) is a fine moduli
space. Thus using Lemmas 5.3 and 5.6, this lemma follows from the same argument in
Lemma 4.3. 


Proposition 5.8 The morphism q : M X (2, 1, 6) → Mσ

(A X , 3s − t) defined in Lemma 5.7
is an isomorphism.

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 819

Proof It is clear that q is injective. Let [E] ∈ M X (2, 1, 6) be a closed point, then
T[E] M X (2, 1, 6) = Ext1 (E, E). And we know T[q(E)] Mσ
= Ext 1 (ker(ev), ker(ev)) =
Ext1 (ker(ev)[1], ker(ev)[1]) = Ext 1 (pr(E), pr(E)). By definition of projection, we have an
exact triangle
ev
H 0 (E) ⊗ O X −
→ E → pr(E)
Applying Hom(E, −) to this triangle and using Lemma 5.4, we obtain a long exact sequence:
d[E] q
0 → Hom(E, E) → Hom(E, pr(E)) → 0 → Ext1 (E, E) −−−→ Ext1 (E, pr(E))
= Ext1 (pr(E), pr(E)) → 0
The last equality is from the adjunction of pr and i, where i is the embedding A X → D b (X ).
Thus the tangent map d[E] q : Ext1 (E, E) → Ext1 (E, pr(E)) = Ext 1 (pr(E), pr(E)) is an
isomorphism.
Finally, we know that M X (2, 1, 6) and Mσ
(A X , 3s − t) are both proper, hence q is
also proper. And since q is injective and étale, it is an embedding. By Proposition 4.1 and
Corollary 4.2, we know that Mσ
(A X , 3s − t) is irreducible and smooth, therefore q is
actually an isomorphism. 


5.2 MX (2, −1, 6) as Bridgeland moduli space

Lemma 5.9 Let E ∈ M X (2, −1, 6), then we have:

(1) H i (E) = 0, ∀i ≥ 0.
(2) Exti (E ∨ , E) = 0, ∀i ≥ 0.

Proof (1): Since E(1) ∈ M X (2, 1, 6), this follows from Lemmas 5.1 and 5.4.
(2): When E is locally free, we have Exti (E ∨ , E) = Ext3−i (E ∨ , E ∨ ). Then the statement
follows from Lemma 5.2.
When E is not locally free, by Maruyama’s restriction theorem we can choose a sufficiently
general linear section S, such that E(1)| S and E ∨ | S are both μ-semistable. Since these two
sheaves correspond to primitive vectors, E(1)| S and E ∨ | S are actually μ-stable.
From Lemma 5.5 we know exti (E ∨ , E(1)) = 0 for all i. Since E ∨ | S and E(1)| S are stable
and not isomorphic to each other, we have Hom(E ∨ , E(1)| S ) = 0 and Ext2 (E ∨ , E(1)| S ) =
Ext2 (E ∨ | S , E(1)| S ) = Hom(E(1)| S , E ∨ | S ) = 0. Now since χ(E ∨ , E(1)| S ) = 0, we have
Ext1 (E ∨ , E(1)| S ) = 0. Thus applying Hom(E ∨ , −) to the short exact sequence 0 → E →
E(1) → E(1)| S → 0, we obtain Exti (E ∨ , E) = 0, ∀i ≥ 0. 


Therefore we know that E ∈ A X , which means pr(E) = E.

Lemma 5.10 Let E ∈ M X (2, −1, 6), then hom(E, E) = 1, ext 1 (E, E) = 2 and
exti (E, E) = 0 for i ≥ 2. Hence E is σ
-stable for every Serre-invariant stability con-
dition σ
on A X .

Proof The second statement follows from Lemma 3.14 and the first one. For the first state-
ment, we have Exti (E, E) = Exti (E(−1), E(−1)), hence the statement follows from
Lemmas 5.1 and 5.4. 


Now using Lemmas 5.9, 5.10 and the same argument in the proof of Proposition 5.8, we
obtain the following proposition.

123
820 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

Proposition 5.11 The projection functor pr induces an isomorphism

∼
=
p
: M X (2, −1, 6) −
→ Mσ
(A X , 2s − t)

5.3 MbY (2, 1, 2) as Bridgeland moduli space

Recall that a vector bundle is called normalised if h 0 (E(−1)) = 0 and h 0 (E)  = 0. We

denote by MYb (2, 1, 2) the moduli space of (semi)stable bundle of rank 2 and Chern class
c1 = 1, c2 = 2, c3 = 0 on Y .

Lemma 5.12 Every E ∈ MYb (2, 1, 2) is normalised.

Proof Since E is stable, we have h 0 (E(−1)) = hom(O(1), E) = 0. A similar argument in

[23, Lemma 5.1] shows that h 2 (E) = h 3 (E) = 0, hence h 0 (E)  = 0 follows from χ(E) = 3.



Thus by [10, Lemma 1], every E ∈ MYb (2, 1, 2) is ACM, i.e. H i (E( j)) = 0 for all
1 ≤ i ≤ 2 and all j.

Lemma 5.13 For every E ∈ MYb (2, 1, 2), we have h ∗ (E(−1)) = 0 and h 0 (E) = 3, h i (E) =
0 for i  = 0.

Proof Since E is ACM, we have h i (E(−1)) = h i (E) = 0 for i  = 0, 3. And from stability we
have h 0 (E(−1)) = 0. By Serre duality and stability of E, we have h 3 (E) = h 0 (E ∨ (−2)) =
h 0 (E(−3)) = 0. Since χ(E(−1)) = 0 and χ(E) = 3, we know that h 3 (E(−1)) = 0 and
h 0 (E) = 3. 


Therefore by Lemma 5.13, pr(E) is given by cone(ev), where ev : H 0 (E) ⊗ OY → E is

the evaluation map.

Lemma 5.14 We have ext1 (cone(ev), cone(ev)) = 2. Hence pr(E) = cone(ev) is σ -stable
for every Serre-invariant stability condition σ on Ku(Y ).

Proof Using [10, Lemma 3], a similar argument in Lemma 5.3 shows that ext2 (cone(ev),
cone(ev)) = ext 3 (cone(ev), cone(ev)) = 0. Thus the statement follows from hom(cone(ev),
cone(ev)) = 1. 


Proposition 5.15 The projection functor pr induces an isomorphism

∼
=
MYb (2, 1, 2) −
→ Mσ (Ku(Y ), v − w)

Proof Using Lemmas 5.13 and 5.14, a similar argument in Lemma 5.7 shows that pr induces
a morphism MYb (2, 1, 2) → Mσ (Ku(Y ), v − w) such that maps [E] to [pr(E)]. And as
in Proposition 5.8, we know that this morphism is étale, injective and proper, hence is an
embedding. Since Mσ (Ku(Y ), v − w) is irreducible and smooth by Corollary 4.2, this is an
isomorphism. 


5.4 MbY (2, −1, 2) as Bridgeland moduli space

We denote by MYb (2, −1, 2) the moduli space of (semi)stable bundle of rank 2 and Chern
class c1 = −1, c2 = 2, c3 = 0 on Y .

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 821

Lemma 5.16 For every E ∈ MYb (2, −1, 2), we have E ∈ Ku(Y ).

Proof Since E(1) ∈ MYb (2, 1, 2), by Lemma 5.13 we have h ∗ (E) = 0. And by Serre dual-
ity we have h i (E(−1)) = h 3−i (E ∨ (−1)) = h 3−i (E), thus from Lemma 5.13 we know
h ∗ (E(−1)) = 0. 

Lemma 5.17 For every E ∈ MYb (2, −1, 2), we have hom(E, E) = 1, ext 1 (E, E) =
2, ext 2 (E, E) = ext 3 (E, E) = 0. Hence pr(E) = E is σ -stable with respect to every
Serre-invariant stability condition σ on Ku(Y ).
Proof Since E(1) ∈ MYb (2, 1, 2), this is from hom(E, E) = 1 and [10, Lemma 3]. 

Proposition 5.18 The projection functor pr induces an isomorphism
∼
=
MYb (2, −1, 2) −
→ Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2v − w)
Proof Using Lemmas 5.16 and 5.17, a similar argument in Proposition 5.11 shows that pr
induces a morphism MYb (2, −1, 2) → Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2v −w) such that maps [E] to [pr(E)] =
[E]. And as in Proposition 5.11, we know that this morphism is étale, injective and proper,
hence is an embedding. Since Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2v − w) is irreducible and smooth by Corollary
4.2, this is an isomorphism. 


6 Instanton sheaves and wall-crossing

Let Y := Yd be a prime Fano threefold of index 2 and degree d. The notion of mathematical
instanton bundle was first introduced on P3 and generalized to Y in [18, 27].
Definition 6.1 Let Y be a prime Fano threefold of index 2. An instanton bundle of charge n
on Y is a Gieseker-stable vector bundle E of rank 2 with c1 (E) = 0, c2 (E) = n, and satisfies
the instantonic condition:
H 1 (Y , E(−1)) = 0
As shown in [17, 37], every Gieseker-semistable sheaf with (r , c1 , c2 , c3 ) = (2, 0, 2, 0)
on Y3 and Y4 automatically satisfies H 1 (E(−1)) = 0. Therefore, we can give a more general
definition:
Definition 6.2 Let Y be a prime Fano threefold of index 2. An instanton sheaf on Y is a
Gieseker-semistable sheaf E of rank 2 with c1 (E) = 0, c2 (E) = 2 c3 (E) = 0, and satisfies
the instantonic condition:
H 1 (Y , E(−1)) = 0

6.1 Wall-crossing

In this subsection, we show that when d  = 2, the instantonic condition is equivalent to the
non-existence of the maximal semicircle wall with respect to σα,β .
1
Lemma 6.3 Let E ∈ Coh− 2 (Y ) be a σα,− 1 -semistable object for some α > 0 with
2
ch≤2 (E) = (1, 0, − d1 H 2 ). Then E is σα,− 1 -semistable for every α > 0 and ch(E) =
2
1 − L + x P for x ∈ Z≤0 when d  = 1, and x ∈ Z≤1 when d = 1.

123
822 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

Proof Assume ch(E) = 1 − L + x P for x ∈ Z. From the wall-crossing argument in [35,

Proposition 4.1] we know that E is σα,− 1 -semistable for every α > 0. Hence by [30], [6,
2
Conjecture 4.1] holds for E and α = 0. Therefore when d  = 1, we have x < 1, which means
x ≤ 0. When d = 1, we have x ≤ 23 , which means x ≤ 1 


Next we rule out all possible walls of [E] = 2 − 2L on β = − 21 .

Proposition 6.4 When d  = 5, the only possible walls for ch(E) = 2 − 2L on β = − 21 are
realized by extensions of ideal sheaves of lines.
When d = 5, there are two possible walls on β = − 21 , realized by extensions of ideal
sheaves of lines and object O(−1)[1].

Proof If there is a wall, then it is given by a short exact sequence

0→ A→E →B→0
such that:
(1) μα,− 1 (A) = μα,− 1 (B) = μα,− 1 (E);
2 2 2
(2)
H (A) ≥ 0,
H (B) ≥ 0;
(3)
H (A) ≤
H (E),
H (B) ≤
H (E)
1 1 1
(4) ch− 2 (A) + ch− 2 (B) = ch− 2 (E);
For (4) we can assume
     
d −8 2 b c 2 2−b 2d − 16 − c 2
2, H , H = a, H , H + 2 − a, H, H
4d 2 8d 2 8d
−1
for some a, b, c ∈ Z such that 2|b − a (this is from ch1 2 − a2 H = ch1 = c1 ∈ Z · H ). Since
1
A, B ∈ Coh− 2 (Y ), we have Im(Z (A)) ≥ 0 and Im(Z (B)) ≥ 0. Thus b ≥ 0 and 2 − b ≥ 0,
which implies b = 0 or b = 1 or b = 2.
Since μα,− 1 (E) = d−8
4d − α ,
H (E) = d (H ) , the previous conditions can be written
2 8 3 2
2
as:
   
(1) b 4d − α a = 4d − α = 2−b
1 c 2 d−8 2 1 2d−16−c
4d − α (2 − a) ;
2

(2−b)2
(2) b2
4 − ac
4d ≥ 0, 4 + (2−a)(c+16−2d)
4d ≥ 0;
b2 (2−b)2 (2−a)(c+16−2d)
(3) 4 − ac
4d ≤ d8 , 4 + 4d ≤ d8
Now from d−84d − α < ∞ for all α > 0, we know that b  = 0 or 2. Then b = 1, and
2

therefore c − d + 8 = 4d(a − 1)α 2 by (1). Since 2|b − a, we have a is odd. By (2) and (3)
we have d − 32 ≤ ac ≤ d and d − 32 ≤ (a − 2)(c + 16 − 2d) ≤ d.
−1
Now note that ch1 2 (A) = 2 H = ch1 (A) + 2 a H , thus ch1 (A) = c1 (A) = 2 H .
1 1 1−a

− 21 c −2c
2
And ch2 (A) = c
8d H2 = ch2 + 21 ch1 H + 18 ch0 H 2 = 1 2 2 + 1−a
4 H + 8 a H , hence
2 1 2
(1−a)2
( 8d
c
− 8 − 2−a
8 )H
2 = −c2 ∈ Z·H . In summary, we have following system of inequalities:
(1) d = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and a, c ∈ Z, a odd and α > 0;
(2) c − d + 8 = 4d(a − 1)α 2 ;
(3) d − 32 ≤ ac ≤ d;
(4) d − 32 ≤ (a − 2)(c + 16 − 2d) ≤ d;
d(1−a)2
(5) 8 −
c
8 − d(2−a)
8 ∈ Z.

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 823

After solving this, we find that the only possible solutions are (a, c, α) = (1, d − 8, R>0 )
when d  = 5, and (a, c, α) = (1. − 3, R>0 ), (−1, −5, √1 ), (3, −1, √1 ) when d = 5.
20 20
When (a, c) = (1, d − 8), the destabilizing sequence is given by
0→ A→E →B→0
− 21 − 21
where ch≤2 (A) = ch≤2 (B) = (1, 21 H , d−8
8d H ). Since ch3 (A) + ch3 (B) = ch3 (E) = 0, by
2

Lemma 6.3 we know actually ch(A) = ch(B) = 1 − d1 H 2 and σα,− 1 -semistable for every
2
α > 0. Hence from [6, Lemma 2.7] and Pic(Y ) ∼= Z, we know that A and B are μ-semistable
sheaves, hence both isomorphic to ideal sheaves of lines.
−1
When d = 5 and (a, c) = (−1, −5), (3, −1), we have either ch≤22 (A) = (−1, 21 H , − 18 H 2 )
−1
or ch≤22 (B) = (−1, 21 H , − 18 H 2 ). Thus by a standard result in [7, Proposition 2.14] we know
that A ∼
= O(−1)[1] or B ∼ = O(−1)[1]. 


From a similar computation in Proposition 6.4, we have:

Lemma 6.5 Let d  = 2 and E ∈ Coh−1 (Y ) with ch(E) = 2 − 2L. Then there is no semicircle
wall intersect with β = −1. Therefore, the maximal possible semicircle wall for E is (β −
2d ) + α = ( 2d ) realized by O (−1)[1].
d+2 2 2 d−2 2

The following lemma gives another description of instantonic condition as existence of

walls:

Lemma 6.6 Let d  = 1, 2 and E ∈ MYss (2, 0, 2). Then the following are equivalent:
(1) E satisfies instantonic condition.
(2) The wall given by O(−1)[1] with respect to σα,β is not an actual wall for E.
When d = 1, we have (1) implies (2).

Proof Since χ(E(−1)) = 0 and h 0 (E(−1)) = h 3 (E(−1)) = 0 from stability, the instan-
tonic condition is equivalent to H 2 (E(−1)) = 0. By Serre duality, the instantonic condition
is equivalent to H 2 (E(−1)) = Hom(O(1), E[2]) = Hom(E, O(−1)[1]) = 0.
(1) ⇒ (2): Since we have Hom(O(−1)[1], E) = 0, these lead to the non-existence of
the wall by definition.
(2) ⇒ (1): The instantonic condition is equivalent to H 2 (E(−1)) = Hom(E, O(−1)[1])
= 0. By [8, Proposition 4.8] we know E is σα,β -semistable for α  0 and β < 0. Now by
Lemma 6.5, we know that O(−1)[1] gives the biggest semicircle wall. So if O(−1)[1] is
not an actual wall, then after crossing this wall, E remains σα,β -semistable. But when d =
3, 4, 5, under this wall we have E ∈ Cohβ (Y ) and O(−1)[1] ∈ Cohβ (Y ), and μα,β (E) >
μα,β (O(−1)[1]), which gives Hom(E, O(−1)[1]) = 0. 


Corollary 6.7 Let E be an instanton sheaf. Then E ∈ Cohβ (Y ) is σα,β -semistable for every
α > 0 and β = − 21 , −1.

Proof This immediately follows from Proposition 6.4, Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6. 


We denote the moduli space of instanton sheaves by MYinst . Let Y = Y3 , Y4 or Y5 . We

collect some properties and classifications of instanton sheaves from [17, 27, 37, 39]. Recall
that on a smooth conic C ∼= P1 , the theta-characteristic is given by θ ∼
= OP1 (−1).

Lemma 6.8 Let Y = Y3 , Y4 or Y5 . Let E ∈ MYss (2, 0, 2).

123
824 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

(1) E is an instanton sheaf.

(2) If E is Gieseker-stable, then E is either locally free or defined by

0 → E → H 0 (θ (1)) ⊗ OY → θ (1) → 0

where θ is a theta-characteristic of a smooth conic C ⊂ Y3 . If E is strictly Gieseker-

semistable, then E is an extension of two ideal sheaves of lines.
(3) For every E ∈ MYinst , we have E ∈ Ku(Y ).
(4) MYinst is irreducible, projective and smooth of dimension 5.

Proof (1): When Y = Y3 , this is proved in the proof of [17, Theorem 2.4]. When Y = Y4 ,
this is from [37, Theorem 1.2]. When Y = Y5 , if E is not an instanton sheaf, then O(−H )[1]
1
gives an actual wall on β = − 21 by Lemma 6.6, and we have an exact sequence in Coh− 2 (Y )

0 → F → E → O(−H )[1] → 0
1
where F ∈ Coh− 2 (Y ) is σα,− 1 -semistable for some α > 0. In this case we have ch≤2 (F) =
2
(3, −H , 10
1
H 2 ), which contradicts [30, Proposition 3.2].
(2): This is from [17, Theorem 3.5], [37, Theorem 1.4] and [39, Theorem 1.2].
(3): This is from the classification of such sheaves and the same argument as in [37,
Lemma 4.1].
(4): This is from [17, Theorem 4.6], [37, Theorem 5.4] and [39, Theorem 5.6]. 


7 Moduli of instanton sheaves on Yd as Bridgeland moduli space

Let Y := Yd . In this section, we are going to show that the projection functor pr induces
∼
=
an isomorphism MYinst −
→ Mss
σ (Ku(Y ), 2 − 2L) for d  = 1, 2 and an open immersion
MY → Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2 − 2L) for d = 1, 2.
inst ss

7.1 In Kuznetsov component

First, we show that every instanton sheaf E is in the Kuznetsov component Ku(Y ). When
d = 3, 4 and 5, this is shown in [17, 37, 39] by using the classifications of instanton sheaves.
We give another proof, which does not need classification results on Y1 and Y2 , and also
works for d = 3, 4, 5.

Lemma 7.1 For every E ∈ MYinst , we have H ∗ (E) = H ∗ (E(−1)) = 0. Thus E ∈ Ku(Y ).

Proof When d = 3, 4, 5, this is from Lemma 6.8.

Assume d = 1, 2. From the stability and Serre duality, we have h 0 (E) = h 0 (E(−1)) =
h (E) = h 3 (E(−1)) = 0. By the instantonic condition and χ(E(−1))=0, we have
3

h 1 (E(−1)) = 0. Since χ(E) = 0, we only need to show h 2 (E) = 0.

When d = 2, from Corollary 6.7 we know that E ∈ Coh−1 (Y ) is σα,−1 -semistable for
every α > 0. By [7, Proposition 2.14] we have that O(−2)[1] ∈ Coh−1 (Y ) is σα,−1 -stable for
every α > 0. Thus taking 0 < α  1 gives μα,−1 (E) > μα,−1 (O(−2)[1]), which implies
hom(E, O(−2)[1]) = hom(O(−2)[1], E(−2)[3]) = h 2 (E) = 0.
3
When d = 1, from Lemma 6.4, 6.6 and Corollary 6.7, we know that E ∈ Coh− 2 (Y ) is
σα,− 3 -semistable for α  0, and remain semistable when α = 2 −  for 0 <   1. By
1
2

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 825

3
[7, Proposition 2.14] we have that O(−2)[1] ∈ Coh− 2 (Y ) is σα,− 3 -stable for every α > 0.
2
Thus taking α = 1
2 −  for 0 <   1 gives μα,− 3 (E) > μα,− 3 (O(−2)[1]), which implies
2 2
hom(E, O(−2)[1]) = hom(O(−2)[1], E(−2)[3]) = h 2 (E) = 0. 


Proposition 7.2 Let E ∈ MYinst be an instanton sheaf. Then we have E[1] ∈ A(α, − 21 ) is
σ (α, − 21 )-semistable for every 0 < α < 21 . If d  = 1 and E is Gieseker-stable, then E[1] is
σ (α, − 21 )-stable for every 0 < α < 21 .

Proof This is from Lemma 7.1 and Corollary 6.7. When d  = 1 and E[1] is strictly σ (α, − 21 )-
semistable, by Lemmas 7.11, 7.12 and [35, Theorem 1.1] we know that E is an extension of
ideal sheaf of lines, hence is strictly Gieseker-semistable. 


7.2 Bridgeland (semi)stable objects are (semi)stable sheaves

In this subsection we assume 3 ≤ d ≤ 5. We show that for every σ (α, − 21 )-(semi)stable

object F ∈ A(α, − 21 ) with [F] = 2L − 2, we have F[−1] is Gieseker-(semi)stable sheaf.
Our argument is as follows:
First, using Proposition 6.4, a similar argument in [7, Lemma 6.11] shows that when
starting at (α0 , β0 ) = ( d−2
2d , − 2d ) and β0 approaching to − 2 , the only wall we will meet
d+2 1
⊕a
is the wall C realized by O(−1) [2] for some a ∈ Z>0 . Then following the argument in
1
[35, Proposition 4.6], if C is not an actual wall, we can show that F[−1] ∈ Coh− 2 (Y ) is
σα,− 1 -semistable for every α > 0. Then again by [6, Lemma 2.7], F[−1] is a μ-semistable
2
sheaf. Therefore, by Lemma 7.4, Lemma 6.8 and the standard slope-comparison argument,
F[−1] is actually an instanton sheaf.
When C is an actual wall, we also follow the argument in [35, Proposition 4.6] and show
that crossing this wall will lead to a contradiction.

Lemma 7.3 Let (α0 , β0 ) = ( d−2

2d , − 2d ) and F ∈ Cohα0 ,β0 (Y ) be a σα0 ,β0 -semistable object
d+2 0 0

with ch(F) = 2L − 2. Then when β0 approaching β = − 2 , the only wall of F with respect
1
0 can be only realized by O (−1)⊕a [2] for some a ∈ Z .
to σα,β >0

Proof We consider the location of possible walls for F. As shown in Lemma 6.5, there is no
semicircle wall intersecting with β = −1. Thus the point (α0 , β0 ) already lies on the maximal
numerical wall C , and we only need to show that this wall is realized by O(−1)⊕a [2] for
some a ∈ Z>0 .
We assume that C is given by a sequence
0→ A→F →B→0
0 (A) and Z 0 (B) lie on the open line
such that when (α, β) lies on the wall, then Z α,β α,β
0 (F). By continuity, this still holds at the end point (α, β) =
segment connecting 0 and Z α,β
(0, −1). Assume ch−1 ≤2 (A) = (a, bH , 2d H ) for a, b, c ∈ Z. Since μα0 ,β0 (F) = +∞,
c 2 0

we have Re(Z α00 ,β0 (A)) ≤ 0 and Re(Z α00 ,β0 (A)) ≤ 0. Thus we have b = −2, −1, 0. First
we assume b = −1, then we have μ0,−1 (A) = − 2d c
. Since ch−1
≤2 (O (−1)) = (1, 0, 0), we
have μ0,−1 (O(−1)) = +∞. Therefore, μ0,−1 (A) = μ0,−1 (O(−1)) implies c = 0. Hence
0 0 0

we have ch−1 −1
≤2 (A) = (a, −H , 0) and ch≤2 (B) = (−2 − a, −H , ( d − 1)H ). But this is
2 2

impossible since we must have μ0,−1 (B) = +∞.

0

123
826 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

Thus we have b = 0 or 2, and in these cases either ch≤2 (A) = (a, −a H , a2 H 2 ) or

ch≤2 (B) = (a, −a H , a2 H 2 ). By a standard argument, we conclude that A ∼
= O(−1)⊕a [2]
∼ ⊕a
or B = O(−1) [2]. 

Lemma 7.4 Let A be a μ-semistable sheaf with ch(A) = 2 − 2L, such that σα,− 1 -semistable
2
for α  0, then A is Gieseker-semistable.
Proof If A is not Gieseker-semistable, let G ⊂ A be the destabilizing sheaf. Then rk(G) = 1,
χ(G(n)) > χ(A(n))/2 when n  0 and G is Gieseker-semistable. Assume that ch(G) =
1 + a H + b2 L + 2c P where a, b, c ∈ Z.
We know that χ(G(n)) = (1 + d+3 3 a + 2 ) + ( 3 + da + 2 )n + (a + 1) 2 n + 6 n
b+c d+3 b d 2 d 3

and χ(A(n))/2 = 3 n + 2 n + 6 n . From χ(G(n)) > χ(A(n))/2 for n  0, we have:

d d 2 d 3

(1) a > 0;
(2) a = 0, −2 < b;
(3) a = 0, b = −2, c > 0.
By the μ-semistability of A, (1) is impossible. For (2) we have μα,− 1 (G) > μα,− 1 (A), which
2 2
contradicts the σα,− 1 -semistability of A. Hence the only possible case is ch(G) = 1− L + 2c P
2
and c > 0. Since χ(G) ∈ Z, we can assume that ch(G) = 1 − L + x P for x ∈ Z+ .
Since 1 − L + x P is a primitive class, G is actually μ-stable. Then by [6, Lemma 2.7], G
is σα,− 1 -stable for α  0. But by Lemma 6.3 this contradicts x ∈ Z+ . Hence we conclude
2
that A is Gieseker-semistable. 

Proposition 7.5 Assume d  = 1, 2. For every object F ∈ A(α, − 21 ) with [F] = 2L − 2 and
σ (α, − 21 )-(semi)stable for some 0 < α < 21 , we have F[−1] is a (semi)stable instanton
sheaf.
Proof We argue as [35, Proposition 4.6]. By [35, Proposition 3.6], without loss of generality
we can assume F is in the heart Coh0α,β (Y ) for (α, β) ∈ V .
From d ≥ 3 we can find a point (α0 , β0 ) = ( d−2
2d , − 2d ) ∈ V such that F ∈ Cohα0 ,β0 (Y )
d+2 0

and μ0α0 ,β0 = +∞. By Lemmas 6.5 and 7.3, this is the top point of the semicircle wall,
denoted by C , realized by O(−1)⊕a [2].
Assume that C is not an actual wall for F. Thus F is σα00 ,β0 -semistable and remains
semistable when β0 approaches − 21 .
By the definition of Coh0 1 (Y ), there is an exact triangle
α,− 2

A[1] → F → B
− 21
such that A (resp. B) ∈ Coh (Y ) with σα,− 1 -semistable factors having slope μα,− 1 ≤ 0
2 2
(resp. μα,− 1 > 0). Since F is σ 0 -semistable, we have that Z α,− 1 (B) = 0. Hence either
2 α,− 21 2
B is supported on a point or B = 0, and therefore ch(A) = (2, 0, − d2 H 2 , m P) where m ≥ 0
1
is the length of B. Moreover, A[1] is σ 0 -semistable and, since A ∈ Coh− 2 (Y ), we have
α,− 21
that A is σα,− 1 -semistable.
2
But as we showed in Proposition 6.4, A is actually σα,− 1 -semistable for every α > 0
2
when d = 3, 4 and σα,− 1 -semistable for α > √1 when d = 5. Hence A is a μ-semistable
2 20
sheaf by [6, Lemma 2.7]. By [30], after taking α → 0, [6, Conjecture 4.1] holds for A and
α = 0, β = − 21 . And when d = 5 we take α = √1 , β = − 21 .
20

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 827

Thus we have m ≤ 1 when d = 3, 4, and m = 0 when d = 5. Assume m = 1,

then we apply Hom(OY , −) to A[1] → F → B and obtain hom(OY , A[2]) = 1 and
hom(OY , A[i]) = 0 for i  = 2. By Serre duality we have hom(A, O(−2)[1]) = 1.
But using Lemma 6.5, a similar slope-comparison argument in Lemma 7.1 shows that
hom(A, O(−2)[1]) = 0, which makes a contradiction.
Thus we conclude that F = A[1], hence F[−1] is σα,− 1 -semistable for every α > 0.
2
By Lemma 7.4, F[−1] = A is actually a Gieseker-semistable sheaf. If F is σ (α, − 21 )-
stable, it can not be an extension of ideal sheaves of lines up to some shifts. Hence F[−1] is
Gieseker-stable in this case.
When d = 3, 4, by Lemma 6.8 we know that F[−1] is an instanton sheaf. When
d = 5, from Lemma 6.5 we know that the only wall intersecting with β = − 21
is realized by O(−1)[2], and this is not an actual wall for F by assumption. Since
μα,− 1 (O(−1)[1]) = α 2 − 41 and μα,− 1 (F[−1]) = − 20 3
− α 2 , if we take α < √1 , we
2 2 20
obtain F, O(−1)[2] ∈ Coh0 (Y ) and μ0 (F) > μ0 (O(−1)[2]), which implies
α,− 21 α,− 21 α,− 21
Hom(F[−1], O(−1)[1]) = 0. Hence F[−1] is an instanton sheaf.
Now we assume that C is an actual wall. Then F becomes unstable when β0 → − 21 , and
F is strictly σα00 ,β0 -semistable and there is a sequence in

0→ P→F →Q→0

Coh0α0 ,β0 (Y ), where P, Q are σα00 ,β0 -semistable with the same slope +∞. From Lemma 7.3
we know that P ∼ = O(−1)⊕a [2].
Therefore, we have χ(P, Q) < 0. Since P, Q are in the same heart, we know
that Hom(P, Q[i]) = 0 for i ≤ 0. And by Serre duality we have Hom(P, Q[i]) =
Hom(Q, O(−3H )⊕a [5 − i]) = 0 for i ≥ 3, since O(−3H )[2] ∈ Coh0α0 ,β0 (Y ) is σα00 ,β0 -
stable with slope μ0α0 ,β0 (Q) = +∞ > μ0α0 ,β0 (O(−3H )[2]). So Hom(P, Q[1])  = 0 and we
can define an object G as the non-trivial extension

0→Q→G→ P→0

in Coh0α0 ,β0 (Y ). Now G is σα,β

0 -semistable when β → − 1 . The argument in previous
2
cases shows that G[−1] is an instanton sheaf. Thus we have Hom(G[−1], O(−1)[1]) =
Hom(G, O(−1)[2]) = 0 and makes a contradiction. 


Now we construct isomorphisms between moduli spaces:

Theorem 7.6 Let Y = Y3 , Y4 , Y5 . The projection functor pr induces an isomorphism

∼
=
MYinst −
→ Mss
σ (Ku(Y ), 2L − 2)

for every Serre-invariant stability condition σ on Ku(Y ).

Proof By Proposition 7.13, we can assume σ = σ (α, − 21 ) for 0 < α < 21 . Using
Proposition 7.2 and the GIT construction of MYss (2, 0, 2), a similar argument in [37, Sec-
tion 5] and [39, Section 5] shows that the projection functor pr induces a morphism
MYinst → Mss σ (Ku(Y ), 2L − 2).
By Proposition 7.2 and Proposition 7.5, we know that this morphism is bijective on closed
points. Since the functor pr is the identity on E, we know that this morphism is étale. Thus
the projection functor induces a bijective étale morphism, which is an isomorphism. 


123
828 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

Theorem 7.7 Let Y = Y1 , Y2 . The projection functor pr induces an open immersion

MYinst → Mss
σ (Ku(Y ), 2L − 2)

for every Serre-invariant stability condition σ ∈ K.

Proof By [35, Proposition 3.6], we can assume σ = σ (α, − 21 ). Using Proposition 7.2 and
the GIT construction of MYss (2, 0, 2), a similar argument in [37, Section 5] and [39, Section
5] shows that the projection functor pr induces a morphism MYinst → Mss σ (Ku(Y ), 2L − 2).
By Proposition 7.2, we know that this is injective on closed points. Since the functor pr is
the identity on E, we know that this morphism is étale. Thus the projection functor induces
an injective étale morphism, which is an open immersion. 


7.3 All Serre-invariant stability conditions

In this subsection, we assume Y := Yd for d = 3, 4, 5. We can consider all Serre-invariant

stability conditions, not only for σ ∈ K.

Lemma 7.8 Let F ∈ Ku(Y ) be an object with [F] = 2v = 2 − 2L and hom(F, F) =

1, ext 1 (F, F) = 5, ext 2 (F, F) = ext 3 (F, F) = 0. Then F is in the heart of every Serre-
invariant stability on Ku(Y ) up to some shifts.

Proof As in [9, Lemma 4.5], we consider the spectral sequence for objects in Ku(Y ) whose
second page is given by
p,q

E2 = Hom p (Hi (F), Hi+q (F)) ⇒ Hom p+q (F, F)
i

where the cohomology is taken with respect to the heart.

1,q 1,q
First we assume d = 3. Then E 2 = E ∞ by Lemma 3.11. Thus ext1 (∗, ∗) ≥ 2 for
∗ ∈ Ku(Y ). If we take q = 0, we obtain

5 = ext 1 (F, F) ≥ ext1 (Hi (F), Hi (F)) ≥ 2r
i

where r is the number of non-zero cohomology objects of F.

If r = 1. then F is already in the heart up to some shifts. Otherwise if r = 2, we denote
these two cohomology objects by M, N . Thus we have ext 1 (M, M) = ext 1 (N , N ) = 2 or
ext 1 (M, M) = 2, ext 1 (N , N ) = 3 or ext 1 (M, M) = 3, ext 1 (N , N ) = 2. But χ(M, M) ≤
−1 and χ(N , N ) ≤ −1, hence if ext1 (M, M) = 2, ext 1 (N , N ) = 3, then χ(M, M) = −1
and −2 ≤ χ(N , N ) ≤ −1. Since there is no (-2)-class in Ku(Y3 ), we have χ(M, M) =
χ(N , N ) = −1. In other two cases we also have χ(M, M) = χ(N , N ) = −1, i.e. M and N
are always (-1)-classes. Now since ch(F) = 2 − 2L = 2v, by classifications of (−1)-classes
we know ch(M) = ch(N ) = 1 − L = v. Thus the second page is:

0 0 0
p,q Hom(N , M) Ext 1 (N , M) Ext2 (N , M)
E2 =
Hom(M, M) ⊕ Hom(N , N ) Ext1 (M, M) ⊕ Ext1 (N , N ) 0
Hom(M, N ) Ext 1 (M, N ) Ext2 (M, N )

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 829

The table of dimension of page 2 is:

0 0 0
p,q a b c
dim E 2 =
2 4 0
d e f
From the convergence of spectral sequence, we know c = 0, b = 0. And from χ(N , M) =
−1 we know a − b + c = −1, which implies a = −1, thus makes a contradiction.
Next we assume d = 4, 5. In both cases the heart of a stability condition on Ku(Y ) has
p,q p,q
homological dimension 1, hence E 2 = E ∞ . If we take q = 0, we obtain

5 = ext 1 (F, F) ≥ ext 1 (Hi (F), Hi (F)) ≥ r
i

If r = 1 then we are done. Otherwise if r ≥ 2, then this is also impossible since 1 =

hom(F, F) = dim E 20,0 + dim E 21,−1 ≥ dim E 20,0 = 2 from the convergence of spectral
sequence, which makes a contradiction. 


From some elementary computations, we have:

Lemma 7.9 Let A, B ∈ Ku(Y ). Assume ch(A) = a1 v + b1 w and ch(B) = a2 v + b2 w for

ai , bi ∈ Z, then μα,− 1 (A) = μα,− 1 (B) if and only if one of the following holds:
2 2

(1) a1 = a2 = 0 or b1 = b2 = 0
(2) a1 , a2 , b1 , b2  = 0, and ab11 = a2
b2 .

Proposition 7.10 Let F ∈ Ku(Y ) be an object with ch(F) = 2 − 2L and hom(F, F) =

1, ext1 (F, F) = 5, ext 2 (F, F) = ext 3 (F, F) = 0, then F is σ -stable for every Serre-
invariant stability condition on Ku(Y ). In particular, every E ∈ MY (2, 0, 2) is σ -stable.

Proof By Lemma 7.8, without loss of generality we can assume that F ∈ Aσ .

If F is not σ -semistable, then there is an exact triangle
A→F→B
such that A, B are both σ -semistable with φ(A) > φ(B). Hence we have Hom(A, B) = 0
and ext2 (B, A) = ext 2 (A, A) = ext 2 (B, B) = 0.
First we assume d = 3. By Lemma 3.13 we have
ext1 (A, A) + ext 1 (B, B) ≤ ext 1 (F, F) = 5
By Lemma 3.12, the only possible cases are ext 1 (A, A) = ext 1 (B, B) = 2 or ext 1 (A, A) =
2, ext 1 (B, B) = 3 or ext 1 (A, A) = 3, ext 1 (B, B) = 2. But χ(A, A) ≤ −1 and χ(B, B) ≤
−1, hence if ext1 (A, A) = 2, ext 1 (B, B) = 3, then −1 ≤ χ(A, A) ≤ −1 and −2 ≤
χ(B, B) ≤ −1. Since there is no (-2)-class in Ku(Y3 ), we have χ(A, A) = χ(B, B) = −1.
In other two cases we also have χ(A, A) = χ(B, B) = −1, i.e. A and B are always (-1)-
classes. Now since ch(F) = 2−2L = 2v, by classification of (−1)-classes we know ch(A) =
ch(B) = 1 − L = v. But in this case we have φ(A) = φ(B), which is a contradiction.
When d = 4, 5, the heart Aσ of Ku(Y ) has homological dimension 1, then it is easy to
make contradictions by the spectral sequence in [40, Proposition 4.16] and Mukai Lemma.
First we assume d = 5, then the only possible cases are ext1 (A, A) = ext 1 (B, B) = 2 or
ext1 (A, A) = 2, ext 1 (B, B) = 3 or ext 1 (A, A) = 3, ext 1 (B, B) = 2.

123
830 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

From the triangle B[−1] → A → F we have a spectral sequence which degenerates at

E 3 converging to Ext∗ (F, F) with E 1 -page being
⎧
⎪
⎪ Extq (A, B[−1]) = Extq−1 (A, B), p = −1
⎪
⎪
⎨ Extq (A, A) ⊕ Extq (B, B), p = 0
p,q
E1 =
⎪
⎪ Extq (B[−1], A) = Extq+1 (B, A), p = 1
⎪
⎪
⎩
0, p ∈
/ [−1, 1]

When ext 1 (A, A) + ext1 (B, B) = 4, the dimension of E 1 page looks like:
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
p,q 0 c 0 0
dim E 1 =
0 0 4 0
0 0 2 b
0 0 0 a
The dimension of E 2 page looks like:
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
p,q 0 c 0 0
dim E 2 =
0 0 4 0
0 0 x y
0 0 0 a
Hence we have x + a = 1, y + c = 1, x − y = 2 − b and all variables are non-negative.
Whenever x = 0 or x = 1, we have χ(A, B) = −1, χ(B, A) = −1 or χ(A, B) =
0, χ(B, A) = −2. Assume ch(A) = a1 v + b1 w and ch(B) = a2 v + b2 w, we have a1 +
a2 = 2, b1 + b2 = 0 and ai , bi ∈ Z. When χ(A, B) = 0, χ(B, A) = −2, we have
−a2 (a1 + b1 ) + b2 ((1 − d)a1 − db1 ) = 0 and −a1 (a2 + b2 ) + b1 ((1 − d)a2 − db2 ) = −2,
which has no solution under our assumptions. When χ(A, B) = −1, χ(B, A) = −1, we
have −a2 (a1 +b1 )+b2 ((1−d)a1 −db1 ) = −1 and −a1 (a2 +b2 )+b1 ((1−d)a2 −db2 ) = −1,
which has the only solution a1 = a2 = 1, b1 = b2 = 0.
When ext1 (A, A) + ext 1 (B, B) = 5, since there is no (−2)-class, the dimension of E 1
page looks like:
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
p,q 0 c 0 0
dim E 1 =
0 0 5 0
0 0 3 b
0 0 0 a
The dimension of E 2 page looks like:
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
p,q 0 c 0 0
dim E 2 =
0 0 5 0
0 0 x y
0 0 0 a

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 831

Hence we have c = y = 0, x +a = 1, x = 3−b and all variables are non-negative. Whenever

x = 0 or x = 1, we have χ(A, B) = 0, χ(B, A) = −2. Assume ch(A) = a1 v + b1 w
and ch(B) = a2 v + b2 w, we have a1 + a2 = 2, b1 + b2 = 0 and ai , bi ∈ Z. Since
χ(A, B) = 0, χ(B, A) = −2, we have −a2 (a1 + b1 ) + b2 ((1 − d)a1 − db1 ) = 0 and
−a1 (a2 + b2 ) + b1 ((1 − d)a2 − db2 ) = −2, which has no solution under our assumptions.
Next we assume d = 4.
In this case we must have χ(A, A) + χ(B, B) = −4, hence ext1 (A, A) + ext 1 (B, B) =
4 + hom1 (A, A) + hom1 (B, B) ≥ 6, which contradicts the Mukai lemma.
Now we are going to show that F is σ -stable. By [35, Proposition 3.6] we can assume σ =
σ (α, − 21 ). Assume that F is strictly σ -semistable. If F has more than one non-isomorphic
stable factors, then there is an exact sequence
0→ A→F →B→0
where φ(A) = φ(B) = φ(F) and A, B are σ -semistable with Hom(A, B)=0. When d =
3, 5, by Mukai Lemma we know χ(A, A) = χ(B, B) = −1. Since ch(A) + ch(B) =
ch(F) = 2v, we know that only possible case is ch(A) = ch(B) = v. When d = 4, since
there is only one orbit in Stab(Ku(Y4 )), we can assume σ = σ (α, − 21 ). Then by Lemma 7.9
we know that only possible case is ch(A) = ch(B) = v. But as shown in [35, Proposition
4.6], this implies that A ∼= I L [2k] and B ∼
= I L
[2k] for some lines L, L
on Y and k ∈ Z. If
all stable factors of F are isomorphic to S, then χ(F, F) = n 2 χ(S, S) = −4, which implies
n = 2. This means F is also an extension of S ∼ = I L [2k]. But both cases contradict our
assumptions by [17, Lemma 4.3]. 


By [35, Remark 5.14], for every pair of Serre-invariant stability conditions σ1 = (P1 , Z 1 )
and σ2 = (P2 , Z 2 ) on Ku(Y ) we have Z 1 = T ◦ Z 2 for some T = (ti j )1≤i, j≤2 ∈ GL+2 (R).
Thus an elementary computation shows that:

Lemma 7.11 Let σ1 = (P1 , Z 1 ) and σ2 = (P2 , Z 2 ) be two Serre-invariant stability condi-
tions on Ku(Y ). Let E, E
∈ Ku(Y ) be any two objects, then μ1 (E) = μ1 (E
) if and only if
μ2 (E) = μ2 (E
); And μ1 (E) > μ1 (E
) if and only if μ2 (E) > μ2 (E
).

Lemma 7.12 Let σ1 = (P1 , Z 1 ) be a Serre-invariant stability condition on Ku(Y ) and E ∈

P1 (φ1 (E)) be a σ1 -stable object with [E] = av for a ∈ Z. Then for any σ1 -stable object
F ∈ P1 (φ1 (E)) we have [F] = bv for b ∈ Z and ab > 0.

Proof When F = ∼ E, this is clear. Assume E and F are not isomorphic. Then by Lemmas
7.11 and 7.9 we know [F] = bv for b ∈ Z. It is clear that ab  = 0. If ab < 0, then
χ(F, E) = hom(F, E) − ext 1 (F, E) = −ab > 0. This means hom(F, E) > 0. But this is
impossible since E and F are both stable and not isomorphic. 


Proposition 7.13 Let σ1 = (P1 , Z 1 ) and σ2 = (P2 , Z 2 ) = σ (α, − 21 ) be two Serre-invariant

stability conditions on Ku(Y ). Let E ∈ Ku(Y ) be an object with [E] = ±2v. Then E ∈
P1 ((0, 1]) is σ1 -(semi)stable if and only if E[m] ∈ P2 ((0, 1]) is σ2 -(semi)stable for m =
m(σ1 ) ∈ Z.

Proof Without loss of generality, we can assume [E] = −2v. As shown in [35], if F ∈ Ku(Y )
is a σ1 -stable object with [F] = −v, then F is isomorphic to an ideal sheaf of line up to
some shifts, and this shifts only depend on σ1 ; And if F ∈ Ku(Y ) is a σ2 -stable object with
[F] = −v, then F ∼ = I L [1] where L is a line on Y . We can assume I L [1 − m] ∈ P1 ((0, 1]),
where m = m(σ1 ) ∈ Z only depends on σ1 . Thus if F ∈ Ku(Y ) is an object with [F] = −v,
then F ∈ P1 ((0, 1]) is σ1 -stable if and only if F[m] ∈ P2 ((0, 1]) is σ2 -stable.

123
832 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

By Proposition 7.10, E ∈ P1 ((0, 1]) is σ1 -stable if and only if E is σ2 -stable up to

some shifts. To show E[m] is in the heart of σ2 , we can do as in [1, Section 5.1]: Let
F = I L [1 − m]. Since Hom(F, E[1]) = Ext1 (F, E)  = 0, we have φ2 (F) < φ2 (E) + 1.
Since Hom(E, F[1]) = Ext 1 (E, F)  = 0, we have φ2 (E) < φ2 (F) + 1. Thus −1 <
φ2 (E)−φ2 (F) < 1. But by Lemma 7.11 we know μ2 (E) = μ2 (F), thus φ2 (E)−φ2 (F) ∈ Z,
which shows φ2 (E) = φ2 (F). Thus since F[m] ∈ P2 ((0, 1]), we have E[m] ∈ P2 ((0, 1]).
Now we assume E ∈ P1 ((0, 1]) is strictly σ1 -semistable, let E 1 , ..., E n be the
JH-factors
under σ1 of E. Then E i are σ1 -stable with φ1 (E 1 ) = ... = φ1 (E n ). Since ch(E i ) =
ch(E) = −2v, by Lemmas 7.9, 7.11 and 7.12 we have n = 2 and ch(E 1 ) = ch(E 2 ) = −v.
This means E 1 ∼= I L 1 [1 − m] and E 2 ∼
= I L 2 [1 − m], where L 1 , L 2 are two lines on Y . Thus
we know that E[m] is an extension of I L 1 [1] and I L 2 [1], hence is σ2 -semistable.
Conversely, if E is σ2 -stable, then by Proposition 7.10 and the same argument above
shows that E[−m] is σ1 -stable. If E is strictly σ2 -semistable, then E is an extension of two
ideal sheaves of lines up to shift by 1. Thus we also have E[−m] is σ1 -semistable. 


8 Isomorphisms between Bridgeland moduli spaces of (−4)-classes

Let X = X 4d+2 for d = 3, 4, 5. In this section we are going to show that Mss σ (Ku(Y ), 2 −
2L) ∼= Mssσ
(A X , 2 − 4L) and this isomorphism restricts to the isomorphism of stable locus.
Almost the same as Lemma 7.8 and Proposition 7.10, but using Corollary 4.5 instead of
[35, Proposition 4.6], we have:

Lemma 8.1 Let F ∈ A X be an object with [F] = 2s = 2 − 4L and hom(F, F) =

1, ext 1 (F, F) = 5, ext 2 (F, F) = ext3 (F, F) = 0. Then up to some shifts F is in the
heart of every Serre-invariant stability on A X .

Proposition 8.2 Let F ∈ A X be an object with ch(F) = 2 − 4L and hom(F, F) =

1, ext1 (F, F) = 5, ext 2 (F, F) = ext 3 (F, F) = 0, then F is σ
-stable with respect to
every Serre-invariant stability condition σ
on A X .

Using the equivalence in [28], Proposition 7.13 holds for A X 4d+2 and d = 3, 4, 5 if we
replace σ (α, − 21 ) by (σ (α, − 21 )). In summary, we have:

Corollary 8.3 Let (Y , X ) ∈ Z d ⊂ MF 2d × MF 14d+2 for d = 3, 4, 5. Let E be an object

in Ku(Y ) with [E] = 2 − 2L. Let σ and σ
be two Serre-invariant stability conditions on
Ku(Y ) and A X respectively. Then E ∈ Pσ ((0, 1]) is σ -(semi)stable if and only if (E)[m] ∈
Pσ
((0, 1]) is σ
-(semi)stable for m = m(σ, σ
) ∈ Z.

Theorem 8.4 Let (Y , X ) ∈ Z d ⊂ MF 2d × MF 14d+2 for d = 3, 4, 5. Let σ and σ

be
Serre-invariant stability conditions on Ku(Y ) and A X respectively. Then the equivalence
 : Ku(Y ) ∼
= A X in Theorem 1.1 induces an isomorphism between moduli spaces:
∼
=
s : Mss
σ (Ku(Y ), 2 − 2L) −
→ Mss
σ
(A X , 2 − 4L)

such that the restriction

∼
=
Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2 − 2L) −
→ Mσ
(A X , 2 − 4L)

is also an isomorphism.

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 833

Proof From Theorem 7.6 we know MYinst ∼ = Mss σ (Ku(Y ), 2L − 2). Since the equivalences
in [28] map the numerical class 2(1 − L) to 2(1 − 2L), hence using Corollary 8.3, a similar
argument in Theorem 7.6 shows that  induces a morphism s. This is a proper morphism
since moduli spaces on both sides are proper.
From Corollary 8.3 we know that s is bijective at closed points and Mσ (Ku(Y ), 2−2L) =
s −1 (Mσ
(A X , 2 − 4L)). Since s is induced by equivalence, it is étale. Now we know s is a
bijective étale proper morphism, which is an isomorphism. 

Corollary 8.5 Let b be any (−4)-class in N (Ku(Yd )) and b
be any (−4)-class in N (A X 4d+2 ).
∼

σ (Ku(Yd ), b) = Mσ
(A X 4d+2 , b ) for any Serre
Then the Bridgeland moduli spaces Mss ss

invariant stability condition σ, σ and for each d = 3, 5.

Proof When d = 3, 5, note that (x0 , y0 ) is an integer solution of x 2 + d x y + dy 2 = 4
if and only if (x0 /2, y0 /2) is an integer solution of x 2 + d x y + dy 2 = 1, Thus the result
follows from a similar argument in Corollary 4.2. Indeed, if d = 3, then there are three (−4)-
classes in N (Ku(Y3 )): 2[I L ], 2[SKu(Y3 ) (I L )], 2[SK
2
u(Y3 ) (I L )] up to sign. Similarly, there are
three (−4)-classes in N (A X 14 ): 2[IC ], 2[SKu(Y3 ) (IC )], 2[SK 2
u(Y3 ) (IC )] up to sign, where C

is a conic on X 14 . Now σ and σ are Serre-invariant stability conditions, thus Bridgeland

moduli spaces of stable objects with these (−4)-classes are all isomorphic. If d = 5, then
we have an equation x 2 + 5x y + 5y 2 = 1, then by exactly the same argument in Corollary
4.2, the solutions of the equation x 2 + 5x y + 5y 2 = 1 and hence x 2 + 5x y + 5y 2 = 4 are
parametrised by Z, generated by the fundamental unit, up to sign. Then all the moduli space
of stable objects of (−4)-classes are isomorphic since stability condition σ are invariant
under rotation functor. 


9 Moduli space MXss (2, 0, 4) on X4d+2 as Bridgeland moduli space

In this section, we are going to show that there is an isomorphism between M Xss (2, 0, 4) and
Mssσ
(A X , 2 − 4L) for X = X 14 , X 18 or X 22 .
As shown in [12], we have the following classification of sheaves in M Xss (2, 0, 4):
(1) E is strictly Gieseker-semistable if and only if E is an extension of ideal sheaves of
conics.
(2) E is Gieseker-stable and locally free.
(3) E is Gieseker-stable but not locally free, and fit into an exact sequence
0 → IC → E → I L → 0
where C is a cubic and L is a line. In this case χ(IC ) = 0, ch(IC ) = 1 − 3L + 21 P.
(4) E is Gieseker-stable but not locally free, and fit into an exact sequence
0 → IC → E → I x → 0
where C is a quartic and x ∈ C is a point. In this case χ(IC ) = 0, ch(IC ) = 1 − 4L + P.
(5) E is Gieseker-stable but not locally free, and fit into an exact sequence
0 → IC → E → O X → 0
where C is of degree 4 with χ(OC ) = 2. In this case χ(IC ) = −1, ch(IC ) = 1 − 4L.
When E is strictly Gieseker-semistable, it is clear from the classification above that E ∈
A X and is semistable with respect to every Serre-invariant stability condition. When E is
Gieseker-stable, this is also true.

123
834 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

Lemma 9.1 Let E ∈ M X (2, 0, 4), then h i (E) = 0 and exti (E ∨ , E) = 0 for every i. Thus
E ∈ AX .

Proof By [12, Lemma 4.3] we know h 2 (E) = 0. From the stability and Serre duality, we
have h 3 (E) = ext 3 (O X , E) = hom(E, O X (−1)) = 0 and h 0 (E) = hom(O X , E) = 0.
Since χ(E) = 0, we know h 1 (E) = 0. Thus h i (E) = 0 for every i.
To prove exti (E ∨ , E) = 0, we assume X = X 14 for simplicity, but other cases are almost
the same.
First we assume that E is in case (3). From stability we have hom(E ∨ , IC ) =
ext 3 (E ∨ , IC ) = hom(E ∨ , I L ) = ext 3 (E ∨ , I L ) = 0. From E | L = O L ⊕ O L (−1) we know
ext 1 (E ∨ , I L ) = 1 and ext 2 (E ∨ , I L ) = 0. Since χ(E ∨ , IC ) = 1, we only need to show that
ext 1 (E ∨ , IC ) = 0, that is h 0 (E |C ) = 0.
If E is in case (4), from stability we have hom(E ∨ , IC ) = ext 3 (E ∨ , IC ) = hom(E ∨ , I x ) =
ext 3 (E ∨ , I x ) = 0. From the long exact sequence we have ext1 (E ∨ , I x ) = 2. Since
χ(E ∨ , IC ) = 2, we only need to show that ext1 (E ∨ , IC ) = 0, that is h 0 (E |C ) = 0.
If E is in case (5), we have ext∗ (E ∨ , O X ) = 0 and hom(E ∨ , IC ) = ext 3 (E ∨ , IC ) = 0.
Since χ(E ∨ , IC ) = 0, we only need to show that ext1 (E ∨ , IC ) = 0, that is h 0 (E |C ) = 0.
Now for all these three cases, a similar argument in [28, Lemma B.3.3] shows that these
cohomology groups are vanishing as we want.
When E is locally free, from stability and Serre duality we have hom(E ∨ , E) = 0 and
ext 3 (E ∨ , E) = 0.
Since χ(E ∨ , E) = 0, we only need to show ext 1 (E ∨ , E) = hom(E ∨ , E[1]) = 0. To this
end,
1
by [6, Lemma 2.7 (ii)] we know that E ∨ and E[1] are in Coh 4 (X ) and are σα, 1 -stable
4
for α  0. But μα, 1 (E ∨ ) > μα, 1 (E[1]) when α  0, which gives hom(E ∨ , E[1]) =
4 4
ext 1 (E ∨ , E) = 0. 


Now we are going to show that E ∈ M X (2, 0, 4) is stable with respect to every Serre-
invariant stability condition σ
on A X .

Lemma 9.2 Let E ∈ M X (2, 0, 4), then hom(E, E) = 1, ext 1 (E, E) = 5, ext 2 (E, E) =
ext 3 (E, E) = 0.

Proof It is clear χ(E, E) = −4. And ext3 (E, E) = hom(E, E(−1)) = 0 from stability.
Hence we only need to show ext2 (E, E) = 0.
By [7, Section 6], σ (α, β) = σα,β 0 |
A X is a stability condition on A X for every β < 0
and 0 < α with −β, α both sufficiently small. When d = 4, 5, the heart A(α, β) has
homological dimension 1. When d = 3, from [34] we know that these stability conditions
are Serre-invariant. Thus by Lemma 3.10, to show ext2 (E, E) = 0, we only need to show
E ∈ A X is σ (α, β)-semistable.
To this end, from [8, Proposition 4.8] we know that E is σα,β -semistable for all β < 0 and
α  0. Thus by locally-finiteness of walls, to show E is σα,β -semistable for every α > 0
and β < 0 with −β sufficiently small, we only need to show that there is no semicircle wall
tangent with line β = 0. If there is a such semicircle wall C , then it is given by a sequence
0→ A→E →B→0
in Cohβ (X ) for (α, β) ∈ C , such that μα,β (A) = μα,β (E) = μα,β (B). Assume ch≤2 (A) =
(a, bH , dc H 2 ) for a, b, c ∈ Z. By continuity, we have μ0,0 (A) = μ0,0 (E) = μ0,0 (B). Thus
β β
we have b = 0. But as in Proposition 6.4, ch1 (A) ≥ 0 and ch1 (B) ≥ 0 for β < 0 implies

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 835

a = 0, 1, 2, and μα,β (A) = μα,β (E) = μα,β (B) < +∞ implies a  = 0, 2. Thus the only
possible case is ch≤2 (A) = ch≤2 (B) = (1, 0, −2L), which does not effect the semi-stability
of E. Therefore, there is no wall for E with respect to σα,β on β = − where  > 0 sufficiently
small. Thus E is σα,β -semistable for every α > 0 and β < 0 with −β sufficiently small.
Hence E[1] ∈ Coh0α,β (X ) is σα,β
0 -semistable, and E[1] ∈ A(α, β) is σ (α, β)-semistable for

such (α, β). 



Proposition 9.3 Let E ∈ M Xss (2, 0, 4). Then E ∈ A X and if E is Gieseker-(semi)stable, then
E is σ
-(semi)stable.

Proof First we assume that E is strictly Gieseker-semistable. Then from the classification
we know that E is an extension of ideal sheaves of conics. Thus the statement follows
from Lemma 4.3. When E is Gieseker-stable, the result follows from Lemmas 9.1, 9.2 and
Proposition 8.2. 


Theorem 9.4 Let X = X 14 , X 18 or X 22 . Then the projection functor induces an isomorphism

∼
=
s
: M Xss (2, 0, 4) −
→ Mss
σ
(A X , 2 − 4L)

and the restriction gives an isomorphism

∼
=
M X (2, 0, 4) −
→ Mσ
(A X , 2 − 4L)

for every Serre-invariant stability condition σ

on A X .

Proof A similar argument in Theorem 7.6 shows that the projection functor pr induces a
morphism s
: M Xss (2, 0, 4) → Mssσ
(A X , 2 − 4L). We know that M X (2, 0, 4) is projective
ss

and Mσ
(A X , 2 − 4L) is proper, hence s is also projective. By Proposition 9.3, we have
ss

s
−1 (Mσ
(A X , 2 − 4L)) = M X (2, 0, 4) and s
is injective.
From the fact that the functor pr is the identity on E ∈ M Xss (2, 0, 4), we know s
is étale.
Thus s
is an embedding. Since Mss σ
(A X , 2 − 4L) is irreducible and smooth by Lemma 6.8,
Theorems 7.6 and 8.4, s
is an isomorphism. 


Acknowledgements This note originated from a seminar talk given by the second author in Tianyuan Mathe-
matical Center in Southwest China(TMCSC), Sichuan University. It is part of the Undergraduate Mathematical
Research Project of the first author mentored by the second author. We would like to thank professor Xiaojun
Chen for the invitation and TMCSC for their hospitality. We thank Daniele Faenzi, Li Lai, Girivaru Ravin-
dra, Junyan Xu, and Song Yang for answering us several questions. We also thank Arend Bayer, Augustinas
Jacovskis for useful conversations on several related topics. The first author would like to thank Jiahui Gao,
Songtao Ma, Rui Xiong, and Jiajin Zhang for useful discussion. The second author thanks Tingyu Sun for
support. We also would like to thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript, and for providing
detailed and interesting comments. In addition, we would like to thank Laura Pertusi and Xuqiang Qin for
informing us the very recent preprint [38] and giving useful comments on the earlier draft of our paper.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence,
and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is
not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

123
836 Z. Liu , S. Zhang

References
1. Altavilla, M., Petkovic, M., Rota, F.: Moduli spaces on the Kuznetsov component of Fano threefolds of
index 2 (2021). arXiv:1908.10986
2. Ancona, V., Ottaviani, G.: Stability of apecial instanton bundles on P2n+1 . Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 341(2),
677–693 (1994)
3. Atiyah, M.F., Drinfeld, V.G., Hitchin, N.J., Manin, Y.I.: Construction of instantons. Phys. Lett. A 65(3),
185–187 (1978)
4. Bayer, A., Macrí, E.: MMP for moduli of sheaves on K3s via wall-crossing: nef and movable cones.
Lagrangian fibrations. Invent. Math. 198(3), 505–590 (2014)
5. Bayer, A., Macrí, E.: Projectivity and birational geometry of Bridgeland moduli spaces. J. Am. Math.
Soc. 27(3), 707–752 (2014)
6. Bayer, A., Macrí, E., Stellari, P.: The space of stability conditions on abelian threefolds, and on some
Calabi-Yau threefolds. Invent. Math. 206, 869–933 (2016)
7. Bayer, A., Lahoz, M., Macrí, E., Stellari, P.: Stability conditions on Kuznetsov components (2017). arXiv
preprint, arXiv:1703.10839
8. Bayer, A., Beentjes, S., Feyzbakhsh, S., Hein, G., Martinelli, D., Rezaee, F., Schmidt, B.: The desingular-
ization of the theta divisor of a cubic threefold as a moduli space. (2020). arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.12240
9. Bernardara, M., Macrí, E., Mehrotra, S., Stellari, P.: A categorical invariant for cubic threefolds. Adv.
Math. 229, 770–803 (2012)
10. Biswas, I., Biswas, J., Ravindra, G.V.: On some moduli spaces of stable vector bundles on cubic and
quartic threefolds. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 212(10), 2298–2306 (2008)
11. Bolognese, B., Fiorenza, D.: Fullness of exceptional collections via stability conditions—a case study:
the quadric threefold (2021). arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15205
12. Brambilla, M.C., Faenzi, D.: Moduli spaces of rank 2 ACM bundles on prime Fano threefolds.
arXiv:0806.2265v1 (2008)
13. Brambilla, M.C., Faenzi, D.: Vector bundles on Fano threefolds of genus 7 and Brill-Noether loci. Int. J.
Math. 25(03), 1450023 (2014)
14. Bridgeland, T.: Stability conditions on triangulated categories. Ann. Math. 166, 01 (2003)
15. Conrad, K.: Dirichlet’s unit theorem. https://kconrad.math.uconn.edu/blurbs
16. Dimitrov, G., Katzarkov, L.: Some new categorical invariants (2017). arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.09117
17. Druel, S.: Espace des modules des faisceaux de rang 2 semi-stables de classes de chern c1 = 0, c2 = 2
et c3 = 0 sur la cubique de P4 . Int. Math. Res. Not 2000(19), 985–1004 (2000)
18. Faenzi, D.: Even and odd instanton bundles on Fano threefolds of Picard number 1. Manuscr. Math. 144,
09 (2011)
19. Happel, D., Reiten, I., Smalø, S.: Tilting in abelian categories and quasitilted algebras. Mem. Am. Math.
Soc. 575, 03 (1996)
20. Hartshorne, R.: Stable reflexive sheaves. Math. Ann. 254, 121–176 (1980)
21. Hoppe, H.J.: Generischer Spaltungstyp und zweite Chernklasse stabiler Vektorraumbündel vom Rang 4
auf P4 . Math. Z. 187, 345–360 (1984)
22. Huybrechts, D., Lehn, M.: The Geometry of Moduli Spaces of Sheaves. Cambridge Mathematical Library.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)
23. Iliev, A., Manivel, L.: Pfaffian lines and vector bundles on Fano threefolds of genus 8. J. Algebraic Geom.
16, 499–530 (2007)
24. Jacovskis, A., Lin, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, S.: Hochschild cohomology and categorical Torelli for Gushel–
Mukai threefolds (2021). arXiv preprint: arXiv:2108.02946
25. Kuznetsov, A.: Hyperplane sections and derived categories. Izv. Math. 70, 447 (2007)
26. Kuznetsov, A.: Derived categories of the Fano threefolds V12. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 264, 110–122
(2009)
27. Kuznetsov, A.: Instanton bundles on Fano threefolds. Cent. Eur. J. Math. 10, 1198–1231 (2012)
28. Kuznetsov, A., Prokhorov, Y., Shramov, C.: Hilbert schemes of lines and conics and automorphism groups
of Fano threefolds. Jpn. J. Math. 13(1), 109–185 (2018)
29. Lahoz, M., Macrí, E., Stellari, P.: Arithmetically Cohen–Macaulay bundles on cubic threefolds. Algebraic
Geom. 2, 231–269 (2015)
30. Li, C.: Stability conditions on Fano threefolds of Picard number 1. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 21, 10 (2015)
31. Maciocia, A.: Computing the walls associated to Bridgeland stability conditions on projective surfaces.
Asian J. Math. 18, 02 (2012)
32. Macri, E.: Stability conditions on curves. Math. Res. Lett. 14, 06 (2007)
33. Mukai, S.: Fano 3-folds. Lond. Math. Soc. Lect. Note Ser. 179, 01 (1992)

123
A note on Bridgeland moduli spaces and moduli... 837

34. Pertusi, L., Robinett, E.: Stability conditions on Kuznetsov components of Gushel–Mukai threefolds and
Serre functor (2021). arXiv preprint: arXiv:2112.04769
35. Pertusi, L., Yang, S.: Some remarks on Fano three-folds of index two and stability conditions. Int. Math.
Res. Not. 05, 1–44 (2021)
36. Petkovic, M., Rota, F.: A note on the Kuznetsov component of the Veronese double cone (2020). arXiv
preprint arXiv:2007.05555
37. Qin, X.: Moduli space of instanton sheaves on the Fano 3-fold V4 (2019). arXiv preprint:
arXiv:1810.04739
38. Qin, X.: Bridgeland stability of minimal instanton bundles on Fano threefolds (2021). arXiv preprint
arXiv:2105.14617
39. Qin, X.: Compactification of the moduli space of minimal instantons on the Fano 3-fold V5. J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 225(3), 106526 (2021)
40. Zhang, S.: Bridgeland moduli spaces and Kuznetsov’s Fano threefold conjecture (2020). arXiv preprint:
arXiv:2012.12193

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

123