INTRODUCTION TO ALGEBRAIC D-MODULESPAVEL ETINGOF

1. Lecture 1
1.1. Differential operators. Let
k be an algebraically closed field of
characteristic zero. Let X be a smoothaffine algebraic variety over k. Let
O(X) be the algebra of regular functions on X. Following Grothendieck,we define inductively the notion of adifferential operator of order N on
X. Namely, a differential operator oforder −1 is zero, and a k-linear operator L : O(X) → O(X) is a differential operator of order N ≥ 0 if for
all f ∈ O(X), the operator [L, f ] isa differential operator of order N −1.
1

Let DN (X) denote the space of differential operators of order N . Wehave
0 = D−1 (X) ⊂ O(X) = D0 (X) ⊂ D1 (X) ⊂ ... ⊂ DN (X) ⊂ ...

and Di(X)Dj (X) ⊂ Di+j (X), which
implies that the nested union
D(X) := ∪i≥0Di(X)
is a filtered algebra.
Definition 1.1. D(X) is called thealgebra of differential operators on
X.
Exercise 1.2. 1. One has[Di(X), Dj (X)] ⊂ Di+j−1(X)for i, j ≥ 0. In particular, [, ] makes
D1(X) a Lie algebra naturally isomorphic to Vect(X) n O(X), where
Vect(X) is the Lie algebra of vector
fields on X.
2

2. Suppose x1, ..., xn ∈ O(X) areregular functions such that dx1, ..., dxn
form a basis in each cotangent space.
Let ∂1, ..., ∂n be the corresponding
vector fields. For m = (m1, ..., mn),
let
n
X
m
|m| :=mi, ∂ m := ∂1 1 ...∂nmn .
i=1

Then DN (X) is a free finite rankO(X)-module (under left multiplication) with basis {∂ m}, |m| ≤ N ,and D(X) is a free O(X)-modulewith basis {∂ m} for all m.
3. One has
gr D(X) = ⊕i≥0Γ(X, S iT X) = O(T ∗X).
In particular, D(X) is left and right
Noetherian and has finite homological dimension (≤ 2 dim X).
3

4. D(X) is generated by O(X) andelements Lv , v ∈ Vect(X) (depending linearly on v), with defining relations(1)[f, g] = 0, [Lv , f ] = v(f ), Lf v = f Lv , [Lv , Lw ] = L[v,w] ,where f, g ∈ O(X), v, w ∈ Vect(X).
5. If U ⊂ X is an affine open set
then the multiplication map
O(U ) ⊗O(X) D(X) → D(U )is a filtered isomorphism.
1.2. D-modules.
Definition 1.3. A left (respectively,
right) D-module on X is a left (respectively, right) D(X)-module.
Example 1.4. 1. O(X) is an obvious example of a left D-module on
4

X. Also, Ω(X) (the top differential forms on X) is naturally a right
D-module, via ρ(L) = L∗ (the adjoint differential operator to L withrespect to the “integration pairing”
between functions and top forms).
More precisely, f ∗ = f for f ∈ O(X),and L∗v is the action of the vector
field −v on top forms (by Lie derivative). Finally, D(X) is both a left
and a right D-module on X.
2. Suppose k = C, and f is a holomorphic function defined on some open
set in X. Then M (f ) := D(X)f is
a left D-module. We have a natural surjection D(X) → M (f ) whose
kernel is the left ideal generated by5

the linear differential equations satisfied by f . E.g.
M (1) = O(X) = D(X)/D(X)Vect(X),M (xs) = D(C)/D(C)(x∂−s) (s ∈/ Z≥0),M (ex) = D(C)/D(C)(∂ − 1).
Similarly, if ξ is a distribution (e.g.,a measure) then ξ · D(X) is a right
D-module. For instance, δ · D(C) =D(C)/xD(C), where δ is the deltafunction on the line.
Exercise 1.5. Show that for any
nonzero regular function f on X, M (f ) =O(X).
1.3. D-modules on non-affine varieties. Now assume that X is asmooth variety which is not necessarily affine. In this case, Exercise
61.2(5) implies that there exists a canonical quasicoherent sheaf of algebras
DX on X such that Γ(U, DX ) =D(U ) for any affine open set U ⊂ X.
This sheaf is called the sheaf of differential operators on X.
Definition 1.6. A left (respectively,
right) D-module on X is a quasicoherent sheaf of left (respectively,
right) DX -modules. The categories
of left (respectively, right) D-modules
on X (with obviously defined morphisms) are denoted by Ml (X) andMr (X).
Note that if X is affine, this definition is equivalent to the previous one(by taking global sections).
As before, the basic examples are
OX (a left D-module), ΩX (a right7

D-module), DX (both a left and aright D-module).
We see that the notion of a D-module
on X is local. For this reason, manyquestions about D-modules are local
and reduce to the case of affine varieties.
1.4. Connections. We will need an
algebraic notion of a connection. In
differential geometry we have a theory of connections on vector bundles.
An algebraic vector bundle on X isthe same thing as a coherent, locally
free OX -module. It turns out thatthe usual definition of a connection,
when written algebraically, makes sense
for any OX -module (i.e., quasicoherent sheaf), not necessarily coherent
or locally free.
8

Namely, let ΩiX be the OX -moduleof differential i-forms on X.
Definition 1.7. A connection on an
OX -module M is a k-linear morphismof sheaves ∇ : M → M ⊗OX Ω1X
such that∇(f m) = f ∇(m) + m ⊗ df
for local sections f of OX and m ofM.
Thus for each v ∈ Vect(X) we havethe operator of covariant derivative∇v : M → M given on local sections by ∇v (m) := ∇(m)(v).
Exercise 1.8. Let X be an affine
variety. Show that the operator m 7→([∇v , ∇w ]−∇[v,w])m is O(X)-linear
in v, w, m.
9Given a connection ∇ on M , define
the OX -linear map∇2 : M → M ⊗OX Ω2X
given on local sections by∇2(m)(v, w) := ([∇v , ∇w ]−∇[v,w])m.
This map is called the curvature of∇. We say that ∇ is flat if its curvature vanishes: ∇2 = 0.
Proposition 1.9. A left DX -moduleis the same thing as an OX -modulewith a flat connection.
Proof. Given an OX -module M witha flat connection ∇, we extend the
OX -action to a DX -action by ρ(Lv ) =∇v . The first three relations of (1)then hold for any connection, while
the last relation holds due to flatnessof ∇. Conversely, the same formula10

can be used to define a flat connection ∇ on any DX -module M . 
Exercise 1.10. Show that if a left
D-module M on X is O-coherent (i.e.
a coherent sheaf on X) then it is locally free, i.e., is a vector bundle witha flat connection, and vice versa.
1.5. Left and right D-modules.
One might wonder if one can relate
right D-modules to left D-modules.
It is clear that a right DX -module isopthe same thing as a left DX -module.
Moreover, even though the algebra
D(X)op is not always isomorphic to
D(X) for affine X, these algebras
are always Morita equivalent, in factcanonically so. In other words, we
have
11Proposition 1.11. There is a canonical equivalenceτ : M (X) ∼= Mr (X)lbetween the categories of left andright D-modules on X.
Proof. Assume first that X is affine.
To construct τ , note that D(X)opis generated by O(X) and elements
Rv , v ∈ Vect(X) (depending linearly on v), with defining relations(2)[f, g] = 0, [Rv , f ] = −v(f ), Rf v = Rv f, [Rv , Rw ] = −R[v,w] ,where f, g ∈ O(X), v, w ∈ Vect(X).
Now for a left D-module M on X, setτ (M ) := M ⊗O(X) Ω(X), and let
Rv |τ (M ) = −Lv |M ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ Liev ,where the last term denotes the Liederivative of top forms. This is welldefined (check it!). It remains to check12

the relations. Let us check the relation Rf v = Rv f (we leave the others
as exercises). We have
Rv f −Rf v = Lf v ⊗1+1⊗Lief v −(Lv ⊗1+1⊗Liev )(1⊗f ) = 0,

since Lief v = Liev f on Ω(X).
Conversely, if N is a right D-module
on X, then we define τ −1(N ) :=N ⊗O(X) Ω(X)−1, and
Lv |τ −1(N ) := −Rv |N ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ Liev .
This construction is clearly compatible with gluing, so extends to arbitrary smooth X.
Thus, we may think of a single category M(X) of D-modules on X,
realizing its objects as left or right
D-modules, whichever is more convenient in a given situation. This isclearly an abelian category.
13

1.6. Direct and inverse images.
Let π : X → Y be a morphism of
smooth affine varieties. This morphism gives rise to a homomorphismπ ∗ : O(Y ) → O(X), making O(X)an O(Y )-module, and a morphism ofvector bundles π∗ : T X → π ∗T Y .
This induces a map on global sectionsπ∗ : Vect(X) → O(X)⊗O(Y )Vect(Y ).
DefineDX→Y := O(X) ⊗O(Y ) D(Y )This is clearly a right D(Y )-module.
Let us show that it also has a commuting left D(X)-action. The left
action of O(X) is obvious, so it remains to construct a flat connection.
14

Given a vector field v on X, let(3)∇v (f ⊗ L) = v(f ) ⊗ L + f π∗(v)L,f ∈ O(X), L ∈ D(Y ), where weview π∗(v) as an element of DX→Y .
This is well defined since one has[π∗(v), a] = v(a) ⊗ 1
for a ∈ O(Y ).
Exercise 1.12. Show that this defines a flat connection on DX→Y .
Now we define the inverse image
functor π 0 : Ml (Y ) → Ml (X) by
π 0(N ) = DX→Y ⊗D(Y ) N
and the direct image functor
π0 : Mr (X) → Mr (Y ) byπ0(M ) = M ⊗D(X) DX→Y .
15

These functors are right exact, so
we may define the derived functors
Lπ0 and Lπ 0 landing in the corresponding bounded derived categories.
These functors have cohomology innonpositive degrees. Note also thatby definition, DX→Y = π 0(D(Y )).
We will denote Lπ0 by π∗ and call it
the full direct image functor. Also
define the (shifted) full inverse image functor π ! by π ! = Lπ 0[d], withd = dim X − dim Y for irreducible
X, Y (where for a complex K •, weset K[j]i := K i+j ). The usefulnessof this shift will become clear below.
Note that π 0(N ) = O(X)⊗O(Y ) N
as an O(X)-module (i.e., the usual16pullback of O-modules), with the connection defined by the formula similar to (3):∇v (f ⊗m) = v(f )⊗m+f ∇π∗(v)(m),where f ∈ O(X), m ∈ M. Thismeans that the definition of π ! is local both on X and on Y . On thecontrary, the definition of π∗ is local
only on Y but not on X (as we will
see later). 1
Thus we can use the same definition locally to define π ! for any morphism of smooth varieties, and π∗ foran affine morphism (i.e. such that
π −1(U ) is affine for any affine open
set U ⊂ Y ). We will see later that
1This is related to the fact that the notion of inverse image of a D-module
is related to the notion of the inverse image (pullback) of a function, while thenotion of a direct image of a D-module is related to the notion of direct image ofa measure, which involves integration over the fibers and thus is non-local along
them (see Exercise 1.13).
17

the correct functor π∗ for a non-affinemorphism is not the derived functor
of anything and can be defined onlyin the derived category.
Finally, note that the functors π∗
and π ! are compatible with compositions.

Exercise 1.13. 1. Let π : X → Y
be a smooth morphism of smoothaffine complex varieties, and f is aholomorphic function defined on someopen set in Y (in the usual topology). Show that π 0(M (f )) = M (π ∗(f )).
2. Let Y = C \ {0, 1}, and X ={(t, z) ∈ C2 : z 6= 0, 1; t 6= 0, 1, z}. Let
π : X → Y be defined by π(t, z) =z. Let a, b, c ∈ C, and M (a, b, c)
be the D-module on X generated by18

the (multivalued) functionf (t, z) := ta(t − 1)b(t − z)c.
Show that for Weil generic a, b, c (outside of finitely many hyperplanes),π∗(M (a, b, c)) lives in degree 0 andis a rank 2 trivial vector bundle on
Y with a flat connection∇ = d + A(z)dz,
A ∈ Mat2(C[z, z −1, (z − 1)−1]).
Compute A(z). Show that if the realparts of a, b are > −1 (and a, b, c
are Weil generic) then π∗(M (a, b, c))is generated by the Gauss hypergeometric function
Z 1
F (z) :=ta(t − 1)b(t − z)cdt.
019

2. Lecture 2
2.1. Direct and inverse images
for open embeddings. Let
j:U →Y
be an open embedding of irreducible
affine varieties. In this case
DU →Y = O(U )⊗O(Y )D(Y ) = D(U ),so for a D-module N on Y ,j 0(N ) = O(U ) ⊗O(Y ) N = N |U ,the usual restriction (=localization)of N to U . In particular, j 0 = j !
is an exact functor (note that there
is no shift since dim U = dim Y ).
Since all our considerations are local, this extends verbatim to arbitrary (not necessarily affine) varieties.
20

Also, consider the functor j0. We
havej0(M ) = M ⊗D(U ) D(U ) = M.
In other words, j0(M ) is simply the
restriction of M to the subalgebra
D(Y ) ⊂ D(U ). In particular, thefunctor j0 = j∗ is exact. Thus, j0 =j∗ is exact for any affine open embedding j of not necessarily affine varieties (i.e., such that for any affine
open set V ⊂ Y , the intersection
V ∩ U is affine).
Moreover, if j : U → Y is an open
embedding of smooth affine varieties,
M is a D-module on U , and N a Dmodule on Y , we have
Hom(j ! N, M ) = HomD(U ) (O(U ) ⊗O(Y ) N, M ) == HomD(U ) (D(U )⊗D(Y ) N, M ) = HomD(Y ) (N, M ) = Hom(N, j∗ M ).

Thus, we get
21Proposition 2.1. For an affine open
embedding j the functor j ! is left
adjoint to j∗.
2.2. The De Rham complex ofa left D-module. Recall that if
M is a vector bundle∞on a smooth
X of dimension n (C , analytic, or
algebraic) with a flat connection ∇,then one can define the De Rhamcomplex dR(M ) of X with coefficients in M :0 → M = M ⊗OX Ω0X → M ⊗OX Ω1X → ... → M ⊗OX ΩnX → 0

with differential locally given byd(s ⊗ ω) = ∇(s) ⊗ ω + s ∧ dω.
In the algebraic case, the same formula works more generally, when M
is any quasicoherent sheaf with a flat
connection, i.e., a left D-module onX.
22

If X is affine, the cohomology of the
global sections of dR(M ) is called
the de Rham cohomology of the Di (X, M ).
module M , denoted by HdR
For example, if M = O(X) thendR(M ) is the usual algebraic De Rhami (X, O(X)) =complex of X, so HdR
i (X) is the algebraic de Rham
HdR
cohomology of X. By Grothendieck’s
algebraic De Rham theorem, for k =C this space is naturally isomorphic
to H i(X, C) by the integration pairing.
Also, for M = DX we obtain acomplex dR(DX ) of right D-modules
on X.
Exercise 2.2. Using local coordinates, show that dR(DX ) is exact
23

except in degree n, where its cohomology is canonically isomorphic toΩX as a right D-module. Thus, dR(DX )is locally a projective resolution ofΩX .
2.3. Direct and inverse image
for a map to a point. Let dim X =n and π : X → pt. Then π 0 is obviously exact, and π !(k) = OX [n].
The situation with direct image ismore interesting. Namely, we haveπ0(M ) = M ⊗D(X)O(X) = M/Vect(X)M .
For example,
π0(Ω(X)) = Ω(X)/Vect(X)Ω(X).
Recall that for a top form ω we have
Liev ω = div ω. Since any n − 1form is a linear combination of formsof the form iv ω (check it!), we have24

π0(Ω(X)) = Ωn(X)/dΩn−1(X) =n (X), the n-th algebraic De Rham
HdR
cohomology of X (isomorphic to H n(X, C)
for k = C by Grothendieck’s theorem).
Now consider the full direct imageπ∗(Ω(X)) (a graded vector space).
To compute it, we need a projective resolution of Ω(X) as a D(X)module. We have just constructed
such a resolution, namely dR(D(X)).
Thus, π∗(Ω(X)) is the cohomologyof the complexdR(D(X))⊗D(X)O(X) = dR(O(X)),
the usual de Rham complex of X
(shifted by n). Thus,n−i(X) = H n−i(X, C)
H −i(π∗(Ω(X))) = HdR
25

for 0 ≤ i ≤ n (the latter for k = C),
and the cohomology vanishes in all
the other degrees.
2.4. Direct and inverse image
for a closed embedding and Kashiwara’s theorem. Let i : X → Y
be a closed embedding of smooth varieties. In this case DX→Y = DY /IX DY ,where IX ⊂ OX is the ideal sheaf
cutting out Y inside X. Thus, thefunctor i0 has a particularly nice description. Namely, let us view X
as a subvariety of Y using i. We
may work locally and pick a coordinate system x1, ..., xn, z1, ..., zp on
Y such that X is locally cut out by
the equations z1 = ... = zp = 0 (i.e.,p = dim Y −dim X). In this case we
mpm1
have i0(M ) = ⊕m1,...,mp≥0M ∂z1 ...∂zp .
26

Given a closed subvariety Z ⊂ Y ,let us say that M ∈ M(Y ) is supported on Z if for any f ∈ O(Y )vanishing on Z and any local sections of M , there exists N ≥ 0 suchthat f N s = 0. Let MZ (Y ) denote the category of D-modules on
Y which are supported on Z. The
above shows that i0 is an exact functor M(X) → MX (Y ).
Theorem 2.3. (Kashiwara) The functor i0 : M(X) → MX (Y ) is anequivalence of categories, whose inverse is i!. In particular, the functor i!|MX (Y ) is exact (i.e., has no
cohomology outside of degree zero).
Now we see the significance of theshift in the definition of π !. Theorem
2.3 implies that the functor i0 has
27

cohomology in only in degree d =dim X − dim Y , so the shift by d isprecisely what’s needed to place thiscohomology in degree zero and makethe functor i! exact.
Because of limited time, we will notprove Kashiwara’s theorem in general, but will treat the simplest special case X = {0} and Y = A1,
to which everything reduces in somesense. Let us work with left D-modules.
We have i0(k) = δ, where δ is the Dmodule generated by the δ-function,i.e. δ = D/Dx, where D = D(A1).
This D-module has a basis vi = ∂ i,i ≥ 0, with ∂vi = vi+1, xvi = −ivi−1,
and xv0 = 0. In particular, δ is simple (check it!)28

Also, i0δ = H 1i!δ = δ/xδ = 0.
However, we have nontrivial cohomology in degree 0. Namely, we havei!δ = k ⊗L
k[x] δ[−1],
so
k[x]
0
!
H i δ = Tor1 (k, δ).

By using the resolution k[x] → k[x]of k (where the map is multiplicationby x), we see that this space is thekernel of the map x : δ → δ, whichis k (spanned by v0). Thus, H 0i!δ =k. So we see that in our special caseKashiwara’s theorem reduces to
Proposition 2.4. Any D-moduleon the line supported at the origin
is of the form V ⊗ δ, where V is avector space.
29

Proof. First note that Ext1(δ, δ) =0. This is seen by mapping the resolution D → D of δ (where the map
is right multiplication by x) to δ.
Now let M be a D-module on A1
supported at zero. Let V = Kerx|M .
Since δ = D/Dx, we have a natural
map α : V ⊗ δ → M . It is easy to
see that α is injective (as δ is simple),and Imα contains Kerx|M .
We claim that α is an isomorphism.
Indeed, otherwise we can pick a nonzero
element ū ∈ Cokerα such that xū =0. Since Ext1(δ, δ) = 0, this element admits a lift u to M such thatxu = 0. Hence u ∈ Imα, a contradiction.


30

Exercise 2.5. Let i : X → Y bea closed embedding of smooth varieties, and let d = dim X − dim Y(a nonpositive number). Show thatthe functor Li0 on M(Y ) has no cohomology outside of degrees d, ..., 0.
Show that the functor id := H dLi0
is left exact, and Rid = Li0[d]; inparticular, H j Rid ∼= H j+dLi0 for
0 ≤ j ≤ −d. Thus, i0 = H −dRid.

2.5. D-modules on singular varieties. Kashiwara’s theorem motivates a definition of the category of
D-modules on a singular variety. Namely,
if X is an affine variety (not necessarily smooth), then one can still define the algebra D(X) of differential
operators on X using Grothendieck’s
31definition, but this algebra is in general badly behaved (e.g., not Noetherian). Thus it is not good to define D-modules on X as D(X)-modules.
Rather, if i : X → Y is a closed embedding into a smooth variety, one
should define the category M(X) of
D-modules on X as the category MX (Y )of D-modules on Y supported on X.
One then has to show that this definition actually depends only on X
and not on Y or i; we will skip the
proof of this fact.
Since this definition is local, it extends to arbitrary varieties (not necessarily affine). Thus, for any variety
X we have now defined the category
M(X) of D-modules on X. In fact,
this category is defined even more32

generally, when X is a scheme of finite type over k, namely M(X) =M(Xred) (i.e. this category depends
only on the reduced part of X). Thisdefinition is natural since for a closed
subscheme X ⊂ Y of a smooth variety Y , the category MX (Y ) by definition depends only on Xred. Notealso that we no longer make a distinction between left and right Dmodules (in fact, these notions are
not even meaningful when X is singular).
2.6. General direct images. If
π : X → Y is a general morphism(not necessarily affine) then the direct image functor cannot be definedas the derived functor of a right exact functor in a way compatible with33

compositions. This is demonstrated
by the following example.
Example 2.6. Let
π : SL2 → P1 = SL2/B
be the natural map (where B is the
subgroup of upper triangular matrices), and ψ : P1 → pt. Then themaps π and ψ ◦ π are affine (eventhough ψ is not affine). Moreover,π0(ΩSL2 ) = 0, since it computes the
top cohomology of the fibers of π,i.e., H 2(B), which is zero. On theother hand, (ψ◦π)0(ΩSL2 ) = H 3(SL2) =k. Thus, there is no functor ψ0 suchthat (ψ ◦ π)0 = ψ0 ◦ π0.
Let us now define the correct functor π∗. Since the problem is local in
Y , let us assume first that Y is affine.
34

We may also assume that X and Y
are smooth (by embedding them into
affine spaces). Let DX→Y = π 0(D(Y )).
Now, given a right D-module M on
X, we can define M ⊗L
DX DX→Y , anobject in the bounded derived category of sheaves on X with a commuting action of D(Y ). Let us represent
this object by an explicit complex.
To this end, recall that dR(DX ) is a
resolution of ΩX . Thus, the complex
M ⊗OX dR(DX ) ⊗OX Ω−1
X of rightDX -modules (called the Koszul complex of M ) is a resolution of M byobjects adapted to the functor ⊗DX DX→Y .
Hence, the object M ⊗L
DX DX→Y isrepresented by the complex(4)•−1
M ⊗OX dR(DX )⊗OX Ω−1
X ⊗DX DX→Y = M ⊗OX ΩX ⊗OX ΩX ⊗O(Y ) D(Y ),35which can also be written as
M ⊗OX ∧n−•T X ⊗O(Y ) D(Y ).
Note that complex (4) consists ofquasicoherent sheaves (even though
the differential is not O-linear). Hence,
its terms have no higher sheaf cohomology if X is affine. Thus, if X
were affine, we could simply take theglobal sections of (4) to get the object π∗(M ) in the bounded derived
category of D(Y )-modules, which isequivalent to what we did above. However, if X is not affine, we have seenthat this is not the right thing todo, since the terms of (4) may havehigher sheaf cohomology. Rather, thecorrect definition is as follows.
Definition 2.7. The direct imageπ∗(M ) is the hypercohomology of the36complex M ⊗L
D DX→Y :Xπ∗(M ) := RΓ(M ⊗L
D DX→Y ).
X

In practice π∗(M ) may be computedby computing the hypercohomologyof the complex (4) using a Cech covering X = ∪N
i=1Ui of X by affine
open sets. Note that this definition
can be applied more generally to an
object in the derived category. Moreover, it can be shown that this definition is compatible with gluing on
Y , which allows one to extend it toarbitrary (not necessarily affine) Y ;in this case RΓ should be replacedRπ•, where π• is the sheaf-theoretic
direct image.
Altogether, we obtain an exact functor π∗ : Db(M(X)) → Db(M(Y ))37for any morphism π : X → Y of
algebraic varieties, given byπ∗(M ) := Rπ•(M ⊗L
D DX→Y ).
X

Moreover, one can show that π∗ enjoys nice properties which we statedin the case of affine morphisms:
Proposition 2.8. (i) Direct image is compatible with compositions.
(ii) If j is any open embedding
then j ! is left adjoint to j∗.
Note also that π∗ is a compositionof a left exact and a right exact functor, i.e., can be defined only in thederived category.
Example 2.9. Let Y be a point
and M = ΩX . In this case, complex (4) is the algebraic De Rham38

complex Ω•X , so its hypercohomology is the algebraic de Rham coho• (X), which for X = C
mology HdR
coincides with the usual cohomology
H •(X, C). The only peculiarity isthat we have a shift by n = dim X,
i+n(X) for
namely H iπ∗(ΩX ) = HdR−n ≤ i ≤ n, i.e., the cohomology ofX (which normally lives in degrees
0 to 2n) is placed symmetrically between degrees −n and n. In particular, this implies the well known factthat for smooth affine X over C wehave H i(X, C) = 0 if i > n.
E.g., for X = P1, π∗(ΩX ) has 1dimensional cohomology in degrees−1 and 1 and zero everywhere else.
Example 2.10. Let X be any variety (possibly singular). One can39

show that there exists a unique irreducible D-module ICX on X whose
restriction (=inverse image) to thesmooth locus Xsm of X is ΩXsm . Let
π : X → pt. Then π∗(ICX ) is
called the intersection cohomologyof X, denoted IH •(X). If k = C, it
coincides with the topological intersection cohomology of X introduced
by Goresky and Macpherson. For
this reason, the D-module ICX iscalled the intersection cohomology
D-module of X.
3. Lecture 3
3.1. Base change. Let π : X →Y be a morphism, and τ : S → Y abase change map. Let W = X ×Y S,
and π
e : W → S, τe : W → X thecorresponding natural maps.
40

Proposition 3.1. We have a natural isomorphism of functorsτ ! ◦ π∗ ∼e∗ ◦ τe!.
=π
We will skip the proof.
Example 3.2. Let S be a point,and π : X → Y be a family ofsmooth varieties parametrized by Y .
In this case, Proposition 3.1 implies
that the cohomology of π∗(ΩX ) isa graded vector bundle on Y whose
fiber at a point y ∈ Y is the cohomology of the fiber π −1(y). This
bundle, being a D-module on Y , isequipped with a flat connection, called
the Gauss-Manin connection. Thisconnection is the main object of studyin Hodge theory. For example, if
Y = C \ {0, 1}, X is the surface
y 2 = x(x − 1)(x − z) in C3, and π :41X → Y is given by π(x, y, z) = z(the ”universal elliptic curve”), thenthe middle cohomology of π∗(ΩX )is the rank 2 flat bundle on Y arising from the Picard-Fuchs differential equation (a special case of theGauss hypergeometric equation).
3.2. Adjunction for proper maps.
Similarly to open embeddings, for propermorphisms we also have an adjunction relation between the functors π !
and π∗, but it is on the other side.
Proposition 3.3. If π : X → Y
is proper (for example, projective),then the functor π ! is right adjoint
to π∗.
We will not prove this proposition,
but will treat the special case when
Y is a point, X is smooth, and M is42

a vector bundle with a flat connection. For this purpose, note thati
ExtiDX (M, OX ) = ExtiDX (OX , M ∗ ) = HdR(X, M ∗ ),the De Rham cohomology of M ∗. To
see this, recall that a resolution of
OX is dR(DX ) ⊗ Ω−1
X . Taking Homfrom this complex to M ∗, we obtain
the de Rham complex of M ∗, andthe Ext group in question is the hypercohomology of this complex, i.e.
i (M ∗), as desired. Thus, we have
HdR
i+n(X, M ∗),H iRHom(M, π !k) = HdR
where n = dim X. On the otherhand,n−i(X, M )∗.
H iRHom(π∗(M ), k) = HdR

In general these are different things,
but if X is proper then it satisfies
Poincare duality, so these two things43are the same:
i+n(X, M ∗) ∼ H n−i(X, M )∗.
HdR
= dR

Thus for proper X we have the adjunction relation
Hom(M, π !k) = Hom(π∗M, k).
3.3. The exact triangle attached
to a closed embedding. Let i :Z → X be a closed embedding, andj : X \ Z → X the corresponding
open embedding.
Lemma 3.4. For any D-module (orcomplex of D-modules) N on X \Z
we have i!j∗N = 0.
Proof. Indeed, using the adjunctions,
Hom(M, i!j∗N ) = Hom(i∗M, j∗N ) =Hom(j !i∗M, N ) = 0 since j !i∗M =0.

44Observe now that for any D-module
M on X (or, more generally, objectof Db(M(X))) we have the adjunction morphism a : M → j∗j !M . On
X \ Z, this morphism is an isomorphism, since j !j∗N = N for any N .
Thus, Cone(a) is supported on Z.
Proposition 3.5. We have a natural isomorphism ζ : Cone(a) →i∗i!M [1]. In other words, we havean exact triangle(5)i∗i!M → M → j∗j !M
in Db(M(X)).
Proof. Since both objects are supported
on Z, by Kashiwara’s theorem it suffices to construct a morphism ζe :i!Cone(a) → i!i∗i!M [1] and show thate
it is an isomorphism; then ζ = i∗(ζ)
45

is also an isomorphism. But this iseasy since i!i∗i!M = i!M and i!j∗N =0 for any N ; namely, we may takeζe = Id.

Example 3.6. 1. Suppose M is
supported on Z. Then j !M = 0,
while i∗i!M → M is an isomorphism
by Kashiwara’s theorem.
2. Suppose X is smooth, Z is asmooth divisor in X, and M is Ocoherent. Then we have a short exact sequence of D-modules on X:
0 → M → j∗j !M → i∗i0M → 0,
which coincides with the above exact
triangle, since i0M = i!M [1].
3.4. Verdier duality. Verdier duality extends the notion of the dual46

of a vector bundle with a flat connection to general D-modules. Namely,
for smooth X of dimension n define the functor D : Db(Ml (X)) →Db(Ml (X)) by
D(M ) = RHomDX (M, DX ⊗Ω−1X )[n].
Let us say that M is a coherent
D-module if it is locally finitely generated over DX .
Proposition 3.7. (i) D preserves
the derived category of coherent Dmodules, and on this category D2 =Id.
(ii) If M is a vector bundle with aflat connection then D(M ) = M ∗concentrated in degree zero.
47

We can also define the functor of external tensor product (on all Dmodules): if M is a D-module on X
and N a D-module on Y then M N
is a D-module on X × Y .
Exercise 3.8. Let X be a smoothvariety and ∆ : X → X × X be thediagonal map. Show that for coherent D-modules M, N on X (or, moregenerally, objects of the derived category of such D-modules) one has anatural isomorphism
Hom(M, DN ) ∼= Hom(M N, ∆∗OX ).
Deduce that Hom(M, DN ) ∼= Hom(N, DM ).
3.5. Singular support. Assume that
X is smooth affine, and let M bea coherent D-module on X. Then
M has a good filtration, i.e. such48

that gr M is finitely generated overgr D(X) = O(T ∗X) (check it!). Then
we can define the support Supp(gr M ) ⊂T ∗X, a closed subvariety.
Exercise 3.9. The variety Supp(gr M )is independent on the choice of a good
filtration on M .
Definition 3.10. The variety Supp(gr M )is called the singular support of M
and denoted SS(M ).
This notion can be extended to nonaffine X in an obvious way.
Exercise 3.11. 1. The singular support of O(X) is X ⊂ T ∗X.
2. The singular support of δ is theline p = 0 in the x, p-plane.
3. If
M = M (xs) = D(C)/D(C)(x∂−s),49

s∈/ Z, then SS(M ) ⊂ C2 is definedby the equation xp = 0. On theother hand, M is irreducible. Thisshows that an irreducible D-module
may have reducible singular support.
4. If M = DX then SS(M ) =T ∗X.
Recall that T ∗X has a natural symplectic structure. We say that a closed
subvariety Z ⊂ T ∗X is coisotropic
if for any z ∈ Z, Tz Z is a coisotropic
subspace of Tz (T ∗X) under the symplectic form. It is clear that any component of a coisotropic subvariety has
dimension ≥ dim X.
Theorem 3.12. (Gabber) SS(M )is coisotropic. In particular its components have dimension ≥ dim X.
50

This theorem is rather tricky to prove,and we will skip the proof.
3.6. Holonomic D-modules. A
coisotropic subvariety Z ⊂ T ∗X iscalled Lagrangian if all its components have the minimal possible dimension, dim X. This is equivalent
to saying that Z is of pure dimension dim X and the symplectic form
vanishes on Z.
Definition 3.13. A coherent D-module
M is called holonomic if SS(M ) is
Lagrangian.
The term “holonomic” comes fromthe fact that if a function f (z1, ..., zn)satisfies a holonomic system of linear differential equations with rational coefficients then it generates aholonomic D-module.
51

Example 3.14. The D-modules O(X),M (xs), M (ex) are holonomic, while
DX is not holonomic (for dim X >0).
Proposition 3.15. A holonomic
D-module has finite length, and RHom(M, N )is finite dimensional for holonomic
M, N .
Proposition 3.16. If M is holonomic then D(M ) is holonomic andconcentrated in degree zero.
Exercise 3.17. 1. Let A be a finitely
generated algebra with generators a1, ..., asand let M be a finitely generated Amodule with generators m1, ..., mr .
52

Let dN be the dimension of the linear span of amj , where a is a monomial in ai of degree ≤ N . Let
log dN.
d = lim sup
N →∞ log N
Show that d is independent on the
choice of mj and ai. It is called the
Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of M .
2. Show that if X is smooth affinethen the algebra D(X) is finitely generated.
3. Show that if M is a coherent Dmodule on a smooth affine X thenthe Gelfand-Kirillov dimension d ofM equals the dimension of SS(M ).
Deduce Bernstein’s inequality: if M
is nonzero then d ≥ dim X, withequality achieved exactly for holonomic
modules.
53

3.7. Formalism of six functors.
Let Mhol(X) be the category of holonomic D-modules on X. One canshow that this category is well defined even when X is singular. Moreover, we have
Theorem 3.18. The functors π∗
and π ! preserve the bounded derived category of holonomic D-modules,
Db(Mhol(X)).
This allows us to introduce two morefunctors: π! = Dπ∗D and π ∗ = Dπ !Dacting on Db(Mhol(X)).
Exercise 3.19. Show that if X is asmooth algebraic variety over C andπ : X → pt then π!(ΩX ) is the cohomology of X with compact supports.
54

The six functors π∗, π ∗, π!, π !, D, 
enjoy many nice properties, some ofwhich are summarized in the appendix. These properties are called
Grothendieck’s formalism of six functors. However, a detailed discussionof this formalism is beyond the scopeof these lectures.
3.8. The intermediate extension
and classification of irreducible
holonomic D-modules. Let j :U → X be an open embedding. Thenj∗ is left exact (since it is right adjoint), thus j! is right exact on the
category of holonomic D-modules. Moreover, we have a canonical functorial
morphism αM : j!M → j∗M , sinceHom(j!M, j∗M ) ∼= Hom(j !j!M, M ) =Hom(M, M ), which contains IdM .
55

This map is nontrivial only in degree
zero, so for any holonomic D-module
M on U , ImαM is a D-module on
X. It is called the intermediate extension of M and denoted j!∗(M ).
Note that M 7→ j!∗(M ) is a functor, but it is only additive (not leftor right exact), see below.
Exercise 3.20. 1. Show that if N
is a holonomic D-module on X supported on X \ U then one has
Hom(j!M, N ) = Hom(N, j∗M ) = 0.
Deduce that j!∗(M ) has no nonzero
submodules or quotient modules supported on X \ U . Show that j!∗(M )is characterized by this property (i.e.,
it is the unique holonomic D-module
on X with this property whose restriction to U is M ).
56

2. Show that if M is simple thenso is j!∗(M ), and vice versa. In particular, if U is smooth then j!∗OU =ICX .
3. Show that if U is smooth thenevery irreducible holonomic D-module
on X which is O-coherent on U is of
the form j!∗(M ) for a unique irreducible O-coherent D-module M on
U (vector bundle with an irreducible
flat connection).
4. Deduce that any irreducible holonomic D-module N on X is of theform i∗j!∗(M ), where i : Z → X isa closed embedding, j : U → Z isan open embedding of some smoothopen set U , and M is an O-coherent
irreducible D-module on U .
57

5. Let M = MU (log x) on U =C∗ (a nontrivial extension of OU by
OU ), and let X = C. Then j!∗(M ) =MX (log x), which has composition
factors OX , δ, OX (in this order). Deduce that j!∗ is not left or right exact(in fact, it is not exact in the middle),
and j!∗(M ) may contain nonzero subquotients supported on X \ U .
3.9. Beilinson-Bernstein localization theorem. In conclusion let
us give an application of D-modules
to representation theory.
Let g be a semisimple Lie algebra
over k, and X be the corresponding flag variety. We have a natural action map α : g → Vect(X)which induces an algebra homomorphism α : U (g) → D(X), where58D(X) = Γ(X, DX ). Moreover, let
I0 be the annihilator in the center
Z(g) of U (g) of the trivial representation of g. Then it is not hard toshow that α|I0 = 0. Let U0(g) =U (g)/I0U (g).
Theorem 3.21. (Beilinson-Bernstein
localization theorem)(i) The map α : U0(g) → D(X)
is a filtered isomorphism.
(ii) The functor of global sections
defines an equivalence M(X) →U0(g) − mod between the categoryof D-modules on X and the category of modules over U0(g).
This theorem plays a fundamentalrole in the representation theory ofsemisimple Lie algebras.
59

4. Appendix: formalism of
six functors (a fact
sheet)
4.1. Functors on all (coherent)
D-modules. Let π : X → Y bea morphism of irreducible algebraic
varieties, and d = dim X − dim Y .
• Functors defined on the derived
category of all D-modules: π∗, π !, .
The functor π ! is π •[d], where π •is the inverse image of quasicoherent sheaves, i.e. it is obtained byintroducing a flat connection on thesheaf-theoretic pullback (in the caseof smooth varieties).
• The functors π∗ and π ! are compatible with compositions.
• The functors π∗ and π ! are compatible with base change. That is, if
60τ : S → Y , W = X ×Y S, πe:W →S the lift of π and τe : W → X thelift of τ then τ ! ◦ π∗ = πe∗ ◦ τe!.
• The functor D is defined on thederived category of coherent D-modules,
and maps this category to its opposite. Moreover, D2 = Id (so D is anantiequivalence).
• The functor π! := Dπ∗D is defined on the coherent M such thatπ∗DM is coherent.
• The functor π ∗ := Dπ !D is defined on the coherent M such that
π !DM is coherent.
• If π is proper then π∗ preserves
the derived category of coherent Dmodules, and on this category π! isdefined and equals π∗. Also in thiscase π∗ = π! is left adjoint to π ! on61

the derived categories of coherent Dmodules.
• If π is smooth then π ! preserves
the derived category of coherent Dmodules, and on this category π ∗ isdefined and equals π ![−2d] (so for anétale map, in particular open embedding, π ∗ = π !). Also, in this caseπ∗ is right adjoint to π ∗ = π ![−2d]on the derived categories of coherent
D-modules. Finally, π ![−d] = π ∗[d]preserves the abelian category of coherent (and all) D-modules, and isexact.
• if π is a closed embedding thenπ∗ is the derived functor of an exact
functor on the abelian category, andpreserves coherent D-modules.
62• if π is affine then π∗ is the derived
functor of a right exact functor on
the abelian category of D-modules.
• The functor  is compatible withthe other functors in an obvious way.

4.2. Functors on holonomic Dmodules. All six functors above aredefined on the derived categories ofholonomic D-modules. Moreover:• D is an exact functor from theabelian category of holonomic D-modules
to its opposite.
• π! is left adjoint to π ! and π∗ isright adjoint to π ∗.
• if π is an open embedding thenπ∗ is the sheaf-theoretic direct image, and it is the derived functor ofa left exact functor. Similarly, π! is63the derived functor of a right exact
functor.
References
R. Hotta, K. Takeuchi, T. Tanisaki,
D-modules, perverse sheaves, and representation theory, Birkhäuser, 2008.
Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
E-mail address: etingof@math.mit.edu

64