Katrin Wehrheim and Chris T. Woodward

ORIENTATIONS FOR PSEUDOHOLOMORPHIC QUILTS
KATRIN WEHRHEIM AND CHRIS T. WOODWARD

Abstract. We construct coherent orientations on moduli spaces of quilted pseudoholo-
morphic surfaces and determine the eect of various gluing operations on the orientations.
We also investigate the behavior of the orientations under composition of Lagrangian cor-
respondences.
Preliminary version 2/1/2007.
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Orientations for Cauchy-Riemann operators 2
3. First relative non-Abelian cohomology 13
4. Orientations for Cauchy-Riemann operators, continued 19
5. Orientations for pseudoholomorphic surfaces 31
6. Orientations for diagonal insertions 36
7. Orientations for compositions of Lagrangian correspondences 42
References 44
1. Introduction
This paper constructs coherent orientations on moduli spaces of pseudoholomorphic
quilts, introduced in our earlier paper [14]. For pseudoholomorphic disks the construction is
outlined in Fukaya-Oh-Ohta-Ono [3]. Some of the details are described in Ekholm-Etnyre-
Sullivan [2]. A slightly dierent construction is given in Seidels book draft [9]. Most of the
proofs in this paper are slight modications of proofs in one of these three sources, and so
the paper should be considered largely expository. However, even for pseudoholomorphic
disks some of the material is new; for instance, we treat the behavior of orientations under
gluing a disk to itself by a pair of points on the boundary, as well as the case of multiple
outgoing ends. We also give a more general treatment of relative spin structures, which
avoids the triangulations used in [3].
The construction of coherent orientations on these moduli spaces allows the denition of
Floer homology and the relative invariants associated to strip-like ends with integer coe-
cients. In particular, the Donaldson-Fukaya category associated to a monotone symplectic
manifold becomes a category whose Hom spaces are Z-modules (if one restricts the objects
to those with minimal Maslov number at least three) or, more generally, objects in the
derived category of matrix factorizations over the integers. In separate papers [15], [6], we
use this material to (i) construct a long exact sequence in Floer homology for bered Dehn
1
2 KATRIN WEHRHEIM AND CHRIS T. WOODWARD
twists, extending results of Seidel [10] for Lagrangian spheres from Z
2
to Z, and (ii) extend
the construction of Fukayas A
category associated to a monotone symplectic manifold to

include generalized Lagrangian submanifolds as objects.
The rst part of the construction, covered in Section 2, is a purely linear construction
that associates to a Cauchy-Riemann operator an orientation of its determinant line. This
part involves various choices, analogous to the choice of orientations on the stable manifolds
used in the construction of Morse homology over the integers. To pass to the non-linear
case in Section 4, one needs a topological structure (the relative spin structures of [3]) on
the tangent bundle to the Lagrangians that guarantees that the index bundle is orientable.
This is a special case of the material in Section 3 on non-Abelian cohomology relative
to a smooth map and quotient by a central subgroup. Sections 6 and 7 of the paper
investigate the behavior of the orientations under the operations of inserting a diagonal
and composition of Lagrangian correspondences.
2. Orientations for Cauchy-Riemann operators
2.1. Determinant lines. Let V, W be real Banach spaces, and Fred(V, W) the space of
Fredholm operators D : V W, that is, operators with closed range and nite dimensional
kernel and cokernel. The index of a Fredholm operator D : V W is the integer
Ind(D) = dim(ker(D)) dim(coker(D)).
The determinant line of a Fredholm operator D : V W is
det(D) =
max
(coker(D)
)
max
(ker(D)).
If D
1
: V
1
W
1
, D
2
: V
2
W
2
are Fredholm operators then we have an equality of indices
Ind(D
1
D
2
) = Ind(D
1
) + Ind(D
2
).
and a canonical isomorphism of determinant lines
(1) det(D
1
D
2
) det(D
1
) det(D
2
).
Explicitly if v
k,i
is a basis for ker(D
k
) and w
k,i
a basis for coker(D
k
)
then the isomorphism

is dened by
_
i
w
2,i
i
w
1,i
_
i
v
1,i

i
v
2,i
_
(1)
dim(coker(D
2
)) Ind(D
1
)
_
i
w
1,i
i
v
1,i
_
i
w
2,i

i
v
2,i
_
.
The isomorphism (1) is associative and graded commutative in the following sense: The
composition
(2) det(D
2
) det(D
1
) det(D
2
D
1
) det(D
1
D
2
) det(D
1
) det(D
2
),
where the middle map is induced by exchange of summands, agrees with the map induced
by exchange of factors by a sign (1)
Ind(D
1
) Ind(D
2
)
.
ORIENTATIONS FOR PSEUDOHOLOMORPHIC QUILTS 3
If D : V W is a linear operator on nite dimensional spaces, then there is a canonical
isomorphism to the determinant of the trivial operator from V to W,
(3) t
D
: det(D) det(0) =
max
(W
)
max
(V ).
To dene this explicitly, choose bases e
1
, . . . , e
n
for V and f
1
, . . . , f
m
for W so that D(e
j
) =
f
j
for j = 1, . . . , k and D(e
j
) = 0 for j = k + 1, . . . , n. Let f
1
, . . . , f
m
be the dual basis for
W
, then we dene
t
D
((f
n
. . . f
k+1
) (e
k+1
. . . e
m
)) := (f
n
. . . f
1
) (e
1
. . . e
m
).
Note that t
D
is independent of the choice of bases e
i
, f
j
.
The construction of determinant lines works in families: For a topological space X con-
sider Fredholm morphisms

D :

V

W of Banach vector bundles

V X,

W X. The
determinant line bundle of

D is a line bundle over X. In particular, any homotopy of Fred-
holm operators D
t
, t [0, 1] induces a determinant line bundle over X = [0, 1]. Trivializing
the line bundle induces an isomorphism of determinant lines det(D
0
) det(D
1
). In partic-
ular, taking X = Fred(V, W) and trivial bundles with bers V, W, the universal Fredholm
section Fred(V, W) V Fred(V, W) W, (D, v) (D, Dv) determines a determinant
line bundle over Fred(V, W).
Remark 2.1.1. For V separable and innite dimensional, Fred(V, V ) is the classifying space
for real K-theory: KO(X) = [X, Fred(V, V )]. Let Pic(X) denote the Picard group of
isomorphism classes of real line bundles on X. Pulling back det(V, V ) under the classifying
map denes a homomorphism det : KO(X) Pic(X).
2.2. Orientations for Fredholm operators. Let V be a nite dimensional vector space,
and
max
(V ) its top exterior power. An orientation for V is a component of
max
V 0,
that is, a non-vanishing element of
max
V up to homotopy. An oriented vector space is a
vector space equipped with an orientation. Given an oriented vector space V , we say that
a basis e
1
, . . . , e
n
of V is oriented if e
1
. . . e
n
denes the orientation on V . A linear
isomorphism T : V W induces a map on orientations. If V and W are oriented, we say
that T acts by 1 on the orientations if T is orientation preserving resp. reversing.
An orientation for V induces an orientation for the dual V
. Explicitly, if e
1
, . . . , e
n
is
an oriented basis for V and e
1
, . . . , e
n
the dual basis, we give V
the orientation dened by

(4) e
n
. . . e
1

max
(V

).
Note the reverse order. If we identify V with V
by an inner product, then the orientation

on V diers from the pull-back orientation on V
by a factor (1)
dim(V )(dim(V )1)/2
. This
is opposite the convention of [2].
Orientations on nite dimensional vector spaces V, W induce an orientation on the direct
sum V W as follows. Given oriented bases e
1
, . . . , e
n
resp. f
1
, . . . , f
m
for V resp. W dene
on the sum V W the orientation given by e
1
. . . e
n
f
1
. . . f
m

max
(V W).
The isomorphism V W W V given by transposition acts on orientations by a sign
(1)
dim(V ) dim(W)
.
An orientation of a Fredholm operator D : V W is an orientation of its determinant
line. For nite-dimensional V, W, orientations on V and W induce an orientation on det(0),
and by (3) on det(D). By convention (4) this denition is compatible with the canonical
orientation on det(Id)

= R for the identity operator if V = W.
Remark 2.2.1. Let Fred
+
(V, W) denote the space of Fredholm operators D : V W,
equipped with orientations of their determinant bundles det(D). Thus Fred
+
(V, W) is
a double cover of Fred(V, W), so that the pull-back of the determinant line bundle to
Fred
+
(V, W) is orientable.
Let V be innite-dimensional and separable. The oriented real K-theory of a space X is
the set of homotopy classes of maps KSO(X) := [X, Fred
+
(V, V )]. Let Pic
+
(X) be the set
of isomorphism classes of oriented real line bundles, equipped with group structure given by
tensor product. By (2), the direct sum operation gives KSO(X) the structure of a graded
Abelian group, so that det : KSO(X) Pic
+
(X) is a group homomorphism.
2.3. Cauchy-Riemann operators. Cauchy-Riemann operators on surfaces with bound-
ary. Let S be a compact, holomorphic surface with boundary, E a complex vector bundle
over S with a maximally totally real subbundle F E[
S
; that is
F iF = 0, rank
R
(F) = rank
R
(E)/2 = rank
C
(E).
Let
0
(E, F) denote the space of sections of E with boundary values in F. An operator
D :
0
(E, F)
0,1
(E) is a Cauchy-Riemann operator if it is complex linear and satises
the Leibniz rule
D(f) = fD() + (f)()
for all f C
(S, C),
0
(E, F). The set of all Cauchy-Riemann operators is an
ane space modelled on
0,1
(S, End(E)). A real Cauchy-Riemann operator is the sum of a
Cauchy-Riemann operator with a zeroth order term taking values in End
R
(E). These form
an ane space modelled on
0,1
(S)
R
End
R
(E); in particular this space is contractible.
Riemann-Roch, Serre duality, and Kodaira vanishing all have generalizations to Cauchy-
Riemann operators on surfaces with boundary. Let D
E,F
denote a real Cauchy-Riemann
operator acting on sections of E with boundary values in F. Riemann-Roch for surfaces
with boundary [7, Appendix] gives
(5) Ind(D
E,F
) = rank
R
(F)(S) +I(E, F),
where (S) is the Euler characteristic of S and I(E, F) is the Maslov index of the pair
(E, F). The cokernel of D
E,F
can be identied with the kernel of the adjoint D
E,F
. The
operator D
E,F
is a real Cauchy-Riemann operator acting on sections of (E (TS))
=
Hom(E TS, C) with boundary values in the subbundle (F T(S))
ann
, the real sub-
bundle of E
(TS)
whose evaluations on F T(S) vanish. The index identities

I(TS, T(S)) = 2(S), I(E
, F
ann
) = I(E, F)
show consistency with Ind(D
E,F
) = Ind(D
E,F
). Indeed,
Ind(D
E,F
) = rank
R
((F T(S))
ann
)(S) +I(E
(TS)
, (F T(S))
ann
) (6)
= rank
R
(F)(S) rank
C
(E
) 2(S) I(E, F). (7)

On a disk, this duality changes a Maslov index I(E, F) into a Maslov index 2 rank
R
(F)
I(E, F), while on the annulus the pair (TS, T(S)) is trivial so there is no shift.
Starting from a surface with boundary S let S be the surface without boundary obtained
by gluing together two copies of S (with one of the holomorphic structures reversed) along
the boundary; the map exchanging the copies acts on S by an antiholomorphic involution
: S S. Similarly, we may glue together two copies of E to a bundle E S. lifts to an
involution
E
of E, so that F is the xed point set of
E
. The eigenspace decomposition for
E
is
(8)
0
(E)

=
0
(E, F) i
0
(E, F)
in any W
1,p
norm, p 1, where we identify
0
(E, F)

=
0
(E),
E
= .
Given a Cauchy-Riemann operator D
E
for the double one obtains a Cauchy-Riemann oper-
ator D
E,F
by restriction to
0
(E, F). We call the operators obtained in this way odd, since
the existence of the complex linear extension to S S imposes conditions on the 0-th order
part of the operator at the boundary. The decomposition (8) induces a decomposition of
the kernel of D
E
ker(D
E
)

= ker(D
E,F
) i ker(D
E,F
)
and similarly for the adjoints D
E
, D
E,F
. Hence
(9) dim(ker(D
E
)) = 2 dim(ker(D
E,F
)), dim(coker(D
E
)) = 2 dim(coker(D
E,F
)).
The Chern number of the double E is the Maslov index of F. The Riemann-Roch formula
gives
Ind(D
E
) = rank
C
(E)(S) + 2 deg(E).
The identities
(S) = 2(S), I(E, F) = deg(E)
show compatibility of (9) with Riemann-Roch for (E, F) in (5). By Kodaira vanishing, if
TS E is positive then D
E
is surjective. It follows that D
E,F
is surjective as well. If S has
genus at most one then a line bundle E S is positive if and only if it has positive degree.
Hence if S is an annulus, rank
C
(E) = 1, and I(E, F) > 0 then D
E,F
is surjective, while
on a disk S it suces that I(E, F) > 2. Presumably one can generalize these results to
arbitrary Cauchy-Riemann operators on surfaces with boundary; we are not aware of any
results of this type in the literature.
Cauchy-Riemann operators on surfaces with strip-like ends: Let S be a surface with strip-
like ends, and E, F a pair of vector bundles as in Denition 4.1.1 of [14]. A real Cauchy-
Riemann operator for (E, F) is asymptotically constant if on each strip-like end e c(S)
there exists a time-dependent operator
H
e
: [0, 1] End
R
(E
e
)
such that the operator D
E
,F
on sections
= (
e
)
, : R
[0, 1] E
e
has asymptotic limit given by
(10)
1
2
_
d +i
Ee
d j
_
+
_
(H
e
)ds (i
Ee
H
e
)dt
_
.
Here i
Ee
and j denote the complex structures on E
e
and R
[0, 1] respectively, and d

is the trivial connection on the trivial bundle E
e
over R
[0, 1]. That is, the dierence

between
e
_
D
E,F
(
e
)
_
and (10) is a zero-th order operator that approaches 0 uniformly in
all derivatives in t as s . An asymptotically constant Cauchy-Riemann operator D
E,F
is non-degenerate if the operator
t
+H
e
has no kernel. Any non-degenerate, asymptotically
constant operator D
E,F
is Fredholm, see for example Lockhart-McOwen [5] for the case of
surfaces with cylindrical ends.
Cauchy-Riemann operators on nodal surfaces. A nodal surface S (with boundary and strip-
like ends) consists of
(a) A surface with strip-like ends S
with boundary S
as in Denition 4.1.1 of [14]; in

particular including an ordering of the components of S
, the boundary components

and strip-like ends of each component of S
;
(b) An unordered collection of interior nodes: unordered pairs
Z = z
1
, z
+
1
, . . . , z
r
, z
+
r

of distinct interior points of S
;
(c) An ordered collection of boundary nodes: ordered pairs
W = (w
1
, w
+
1
), . . . , (w
s
, w
+
s
)
of distinct boundary points of S
.
Remark 2.3.1. S
is the normalization (resolution of singularities) of S.

A complex vector bundle E S on a nodal surface with boundary consists of
(a) A complex vector bundle E
;
(b) Isomorphisms E
z
+
i
E
i
and E
w
+
i
E
i
for each interior and boundary node;
(c) A trivialization E
[
ime
= E
e
(R
[0, 1]) for each strip-like end e c(S
).
A totally real boundary condition F for E S is a totally real subbundle F
[
S
such
that:
(a) The identications of the bers at the boundary nodes induce isomorphisms F
w
+
i
i
;
(b) F
is maximally totally real, that is rank

R
(F
) = rank
C
(E
);
(c) In the trivialization over each strip-like end e c(S
), the subspaces F
e(s,0)
= F
e,0

E
e
and F
e(s,1)
= F
e,1
E
e
are constant along s R
, and they form a transverse

pair F
e,0
F
e,1
= E
e
, as in Section 4.1.
Let E S be a complex vector bundle on a nodal surface S with totally real boundary
condition F. By a real Cauchy-Riemann operator D
E,F
for (S, E, F) we mean an operator
D
E,F
:
0
(E, F)
0,1
(E, F), D
E
,F
dened in terms of a real Cauchy-Riemann operator D

E
,F
on S
with values in E
and
boundary conditions in F
. Here we set
0,1
(E, F) :=
0,1
(E
, F
), dene
0
(E, F)
0
(E
, F
) as the kernel of the surjective map

:
0
(E
, F
i
E
z
+
i
j
F
w
+
j

i
((z
+
i
) (z
i
))
j
((w
+
j
) (w
j
)).
By a family of nodal surfaces S B we mean a smooth family S
B of complex
surfaces (compact, possibly with boundary) over a smooth, open base B, together with
nodes Z, W (S
)
2
varying smoothly over B. By a family of complex vector bundles
E S we mean a complex vector bundle E
, together with smoothly varying

identications of the bers at the nodes and constant trivializations on the strip-like ends.
A family of totally real boundary conditions F S consists of a totally real boundary
condition F
that is constant in the trivializations on the strip-like ends. A family

of real Cauchy-Riemann operators D
E,F
for the families (S, E, F) B is a family of real
Cauchy-Riemann operators D
b
for (S
b
, E
b
, F
b
), varying smoothly with b B.
The determinant line det(D
E,F
) for the operator over a nodal surface S is isomorphic
to the determinant det(D
E
,F
) for the corresponding operator over the smooth surface S
with resolved nodes by the following construction: Consider the unreduced operator
D
unred
E,F
:
0
(E
, F
i
E
z
+
i
j
F
w
+
j
0,1
(E
, F
), ((), D
E
,F
).
The kernel and cokernel are canonically isomorphic to those of D
E,F
, and the isomorphisms
dene an isomorphism of determinant lines
(11) det(D
E,F
) det(D
unred
E,F
).
From this we construct the reduced operator
(12) D
red
E,F
: ker(D
E
,F
)
i
E
z
+
i
j
F
w
+
j
coker(D
E
,F
), ((), 0).
Its kernel and cokernel are canonically isomorphic to those of D
unred
E,F
and the isomorphisms
dene an isomorphism of determinant lines
(13) det(D
unred
E,F
) det(D
red
E,F
).
Since the domain and codomain of D
red
E,F
are nite dimensional, we have by (3) a canonical
isomorphism
(14) det(D
red
E,F
)
max
_
i
E
z
+
i
j
F
w
+
j
_
det(D
E
,F
).
Hence orientations on D
E
,F
and the bers E
z
+
i
, F
w
+
j
induce an orientation on D
E,F
. A
similar isomorphism holds when a surface S and bundles E, F are obtained from another
nodal surface

S and bundles

E,

F by resolving some subset of the nodes of

S; that is, by
removing some subset of the sets of interior and boundary nodes Z, W.
2.4. Gluing of Cauchy-Riemann operators. In this section we describe two gluing
operations and construct corresponding isomorphisms of determinant lines. We x a nodal
surface S with strip-like ends, a complex vector bundle E S, a totally real boundary
condition F S, and a real Cauchy-Riemann operator D
E,F
as in Section 4.1 of [14].
Gluing of strip-like ends. Let e
+
c
+
(S) and e
(S) be an outgoing resp. incoming

end and suppose we are given a complex isomorphism E
e
+
E
e
mapping F
e
+
,j
to F
e
,j
for j = 0, 1. Suppose that the asymptotic limits (10) of D
E,F
on the ends e
are equal, after

the identication of bers. Let

S = #
e
e
+
(S) be the surface formed by gluing the ends of S,
that is
e
+
(R
+
[0, 1])
e
(R
[0, 1]) S is replaced by a strip [, ] [0, 1] depending

on a gluing parameter > 0, where [0, 1] is identied with
e
(0 [0, 1]). (This

gluing operation xes

S as a nodal surface with strip-like ends as in Section 4.1 of [14] and
Denition 4.1.1 of [14], up to the choice of a new ordering on the boundary components
and strip-like ends.) Let

E,

F be the complex vector bundle and totally real boundary
condition over

S that arise from gluing E, F via the isomorphism E
e
+
= E
e
on the middle
strip. Using cuto functions on the strip-like ends one constructs from D
E,F
a real Cauchy-
Riemann operator D
E,
F
for (
S,

E,

F). For suciently large there exist isomorphisms
ker(D
E,F
)

ker(D
E,
F
), coker(D
E,F
)

coker(D
E,
F
)
dened as follows. Given a section in the kernel of D
E,F
, one uses cuto functions on
[, ] to glue it together to a section

= #
of

E

S with boundary conditions in

F,
which is an approximate zero of D
E,
F
. Gluing followed by orthogonal projection onto the
kernel of D
E,
F
denes, for suciently large, the isomorphism. The construction for the
cokernels follows by identifying the cokernels of D
E,F
and D
E,
F
with the kernels of their
adjoints. This produces an equality of indices
Ind(D
E,F
) = Ind(D
E,
F
)
and an isomorphism of determinant lines
(15) det(D
E,F
) det(D
E,
F
).
Gluing (deformation) of nodes. Consider an interior node of S represented by a pair z
,
and R
>0
+[0, 1]i. Let

S
be the (possibly still nodal) surface with strip-like ends obtained

by deforming the node, that is, gluing together punctured disks around z
using the map

z exp(2)/z. We denote by s +it = ln(z)/ the coordinates on the cylindrical neck
[[[, [[] S
1
. In the case of a boundary node, we require that the gluing parameter is
real and glue together half-disks by the same map and identify the neck with [, ] [0, 1]
with coordinates s + it. In general, the conformal structure of

S
depends on the value of

the gluing parameter , as well as the choices of local coordinates R
S
1
or R
[0, 1] on
punctured neighborhoods of z
, which are xed in the notion of nodes of S. (In addition,

one has to choose a new ordering on the nodes and possibly the boundary components of

S.)
Let

E
,

F
denote the vector bundles over

S,

S obtained by gluing in the trivial bundles
(E
z
, F
z
) = (E
, F
) = (E
z
+
, F
z
+
) in the xed trivialization over the (half-)disks around
z
. Using cuto functions, one constructs from D

E,F
a real Cauchy-Riemann operator
D
E ,
F
for (
,

E
,

F
).
The following is a slight modication of [2, Lemma 3.1]; it implies that there is a canon-
ical identication of determinant lines of the deformed Cauchy-Riemann operator with the
determinant line of the original. We now suppose that the node is on the boundary; the
interior case is similar. We also assume for simplicity that

S is smooth.
Theorem 2.4.1. For suciently large values of the gluing parameter there is an exact
sequence
1
(16) 0 ker(D
E,
F
)

ker(D
E
,F
)
D
red
E,

F
F
z
coker(D
E
,F
) coker(D
E,
F
) 0
such that
(a) the middle map D
red
E,
F
has the property D
red
E,
D
red
E,F
, the operator of (12), and
(b) the map F
z
coker(D
E,
F
) is the adjoint of the map coker(D
E,
F
) F
z
given by
(0, t)/(ds idt), in the limit , where (0, t) is the midpoint of the neck.
Proof. First we construct suitable Sobolev spaces on the glued surface

S
, depending on the
gluing parameter . Let be a smooth function on

S
, supported on [6/7, 6/7], equal

to 1 on [5/7, 5/7], with derivative bounded by C/ for some constant C > 0. Consider
the function
(17)
),
= (1 ) +(e
(s)
+e
(s+)
).
The second term is well-dened since is supported on the neck. Let W
1,2
(

E
,

F
) the
Sobolev space with weight function
, that is, the space of functions f such that
f lies
in W
1,2
(

E
,

F
) the standard Sobolev (1, 2)-space. The Cauchy-Riemann operator D
E ,
F
is Fredholm on this Sobolev space and we have an exact sequence
(18) 0 ker(D
E ,
F
)
0
(

E
,

F
)
0,1
(

E
) coker(D
E ,
F
) 0.
Dene splittings
(19)
0
(

E
,

F
)

= V
ker(D
E
,F
).
(20)
0,1
(

E,

F)

= U
F
z
coker(D
E
,F
)
as follows. Let
) denote a slowly varying cut-o function, with
(s) = 1 on
the complement of (4/7, 4/7) [0, 1]

S
, equal to 0 on (3/7, 3/7) [0, 1]

S
,
and satisfying sup[
[, sup [D
[ < C
1
on the neck (4/7, 4/7). For any
0
(E, F)
we denote by

0
(

E
,

F
) the section obtained by multiplying by the cuto function
and using the identication of

E
and E away from the neck. For suciently large,

the map
ker(D
E
,F
)
ker(D
E
,F
),
is an isomorphism, since the domain is nite-dimensional. Let V
denote its W
0,2
-orthogonal
complement. Dene the rst map in (29) to be the composition ker(D
E,
F
) ker(D
E
,F
)
of inclusion and projection along V
. We claim that for (1, 0), the restriction of

D
E ,
F
to V
is uniformly right invertible, that is, there exist constants C and

0
such that
for >
0
,
(21) C||
W
1,2
|D
E ,
F
|
L
2
, V
.
1
In the case that DE,F is odd, the sequence (29) is related to the long exact sequence in algebraic geometry
0 ker(D
E
) ker(D
E
) Ez coker(D
E
) coker(D
E
) 0 associated to the short exact sequence of
sheaves 0 E E
Ez 0, see [4]. If coker(DE
,F
) = 0, then (29) can be derived from the above long
exact sequence, since vanishing of higher cohomology is an open condition in families.
Suppose otherwise. Then there exists a sequence
with
(22) |
|
W
1,2
= 1, lim
|D
E ,
|
L
2
= 0.
Denote by S
resp. E
, F
the surface with strip-like ends obtained by removing the node

z, resp. the bers E
z
, F
z
. Let S
, E
, F
be the neck and bundles restricted to the neck.

We split
into sections supported away from and on the neck, and apply elliptic estimates
for S
, S
to obtain a contradiction.
We claim that the kernel of D
E,F
may be identied with the kernel of D
E
,F
for any
Sobolev weight (0, 1). Indeed, we may identify S locally with the half-space H. We
assume that our Sobolev spaces on S use a measure that is locally the pull-back of the
standard measure on H. The conformal transformation (s, t) exp(s it) maps the
innite strip R[0, 1] to H, and the pull-back of the canonical measure on H is e
2s
dsdt.
With our conventions, this is the measure with Sobolev weight = 1. This gives an
identication of the kernel D
E
,F
on W
1,2
1
(E
, F
) with the kernel of D

E,F
on W
1,2
(E, F),
and by elliptic regularity with the kernel of D
E,F
on W
1,2
(E, F) for any k. The operator
D
E
,F
Fredholm for weights not in the spectrum Z of the limiting operator on the strip-like
ends, see e.g. [5], and the kernel is unchanged by any non-negative perturbation of Sobolev
weight not passing through the spectrum. Hence the kernel of D
E,F
on W
1,2
1
(E
, F
) is the
kernel on W
1,2
(E
, F
) for any (1, 0).

The kernel of the Cauchy-Riemann operator on the neck D
E
,F
is trivial, by the choice
of Sobolev weights , . The norm of a section of

E
is comparable to the same section

considered as a section of E
, up to a factor e
which appears in the second term of (17).

Let
be a slowly varying function on supported on (2/7, 2/7) [0, 1] and equal to

1 on (1/7, 1/7) [0, 1], and with sup[
[, sup[D
[ < C
1
on (, ). We have for
some constants C > 0 independent of ,
|
E
C|
|
E
+Ce
|(1
|
E
C|D
E
,F
|
E
+C| proj
ker(D
E
,F
)
|
E
+Ce
|D
E
,F
(1
|
E
0
which is a contradiction. The rst inequality follows from comparibility of the norms on E
,
E
, and E, the second inequality combines the elliptic estimates for (E
, F
) and (E
, F
),
and the last uses the bound on the derivative of
.
Next we nd an approximate description of the image of V
under D
E ,
F
. Identify
coker(D
E
,F
) with the W
1,2
-perpendicular of im(D
E
,F
). Also identify E and E
away
from the neck. Dene an injection for suciently large
coker(D
E
,F
)
0,1
(

E
,

F
),
;
let
coker(D
E
,F
) denote its image. Let F
z
the subspace of
0,1
(

E
,

F
)
L
2
consisting of
one-forms equal on the neck to fds idt for some f F
z
. By multiplying by
we obtain
a nite-dimensional subspace of
0,1
(

E
,

F
)
L
2
, isomorphic to F
z
by evaluation at a point
at the mid-point of the neck. For suciently large, the sum
coker(D
E
,F
) +
F
z
is
direct, since the intersection is trivial. Let
U

0,1
(

E
,

F
)
denote its W
1,2
-perpendicular. Let
:
0,1
(

E
,

F
) U
denote the projection. We claim that
E,
F
: V
is an isomorphism with uniformly

bounded right inverse, for suciently large. Otherwise, there is a sequence
with
(23) |
|
V
= 1, |
E
,
|
U
0.
The pairing of D
E
,
with any sequence of elements
of T
of norm one
approaches zero since cut-o functions are slowly varying. Together with (23) this implies
|D
E
,
| 0 which contradicts (21).

From (18), (19), and (20) for suciently large we obtain an exact sequence
0 ker(D
E ,
F
) V
ker(D
E
,F
) U
F
z
coker(D
E
,F
) coker(D
E ,
F
) 0.
The index equality
Ind(D
E ,
F
) = Ind(D
E
,F
) dim(F
z
)
implies that the restriction of
E ,
F
to V
is an isomorphism onto U
. Let

D
ij
, i, j = 1, 2
denote the components of D
E ,
F
with respect to the splittings above. The kernel of D
E ,
F
consists of pairs (
1
,
2
) such that
1
=
D
1
11
D
12
2
, (
D
21

D
1
11
D
12
+

D
22
)
2
= 0.
Hence if we dene
D
red
E ,
F
=
D
21

D
1
11
D
12
+

D
22
.
then we have an identication
ker(D
E ,
F
) ker(D
red
E ,
F
),
2
(
D
1
11
D
12
2
,
2
).
The image of D
E ,
F
consists of pairs (
1
,
2
) such that
2
D
21
D
1
11

1
lies in the image
of D
red
E ,
F
. The inclusion of F
z
coker(D
E
,F
) into U
F
z
coker(D
E
,F
) induces an
identication of cokernels of D
E ,
F
and D
red
E ,
F
, hence the desired exact sequence.
The component of D
red
E ,

F
in F
z
is given asymptotically by projecting D
E ,
F
(
) onto
F
z
. We have
D
E ,
F
(
) (
s
)(ds +idt).
Pairing with f F
z
gives the dierence of evaluation maps (z
+
) (z
) paired with f. It
follows that the limit is
lim
D
red
E ,
F
= ((z
+
) (z
), 0) = D
red
E,F
.
To prove the last claim in the theorem, the cokernel of the reduced operator contains a
subspace of forms approximately constant on the neck, perpendicular to the image of the
dierence of evaluation maps. On the other hand, maps coker(D
E
,F
) to one-forms
asymptotically vanishing on the neck.
The existence of the exact sequence is equivalent to the existence of isomorphisms
(24) ker(D
red
E,
F
) ker(D
E,
F
), coker(D
red
E,
F
) coker(D
E,
F
).
These induce an isomorphism of determinant lines
(25) det(D
E,
F
) det(D
red
E,
F
).
The homotopy of Theorem 2.4.1 induces an isomorphism of determinant lines
(26) det(D
red
E,F
) det(D
red
E,
F
).
Combining (25), (26), (13), and (11) gives our gluing isomorphism
(27) det(D
E,F
) det(D
E,
F
).
The gluing maps satisfy an associativity property: If S is a nodal surface with strip-like
ends and

S the surface obtained by deforming two nodes, or deforming one node and gluing
together two strip-like ends, or gluing together two pairs of strip-like ends, then the resulting
gluing isomorphisms det(D
E,F
) det(D
E,
F
) are independent of the order of gluing. We
consider only the case of two boundary nodes z, z
; the cases of interior nodes, strip-like

ends, and mixed cases are similar but easier.
Lemma 2.4.2. If denotes the deformation of z and
the deformation of z
then the
diagram
(28)
det(D
E,F
) det(D
E
,F
)
det(D
E
,F
) det(D
E
,
,F
,
)
?
-
?
-
commutes.
Proof. The proof is a minor modication of e.g. [2, Lemma 3.5]. Simultaneous deformation
of the two nodes leads to an exact sequence
(29)
0 ker(D
E
,
,F
,
) ker(D
E
,
,F
,
) F
z
F
z
coker(D
E
,
,F
,
) coker(D
E
,
,F
,
) 0
which induces an isomorphism
(30) det(D
E,F
) det(D
E
,
,F
,
).
We claim that this isomorphism is equal to the isomorphism given by going either way
around the square (28). To prove the claim consider the diagram
ker(D
E
,
,F
,
) ker(D
E
,
,F
,
) F
z
coker(D
E
,
,F
,
) F
z
coker(D
E
,
,F
,
)
ker(D
E
,
,F
,
) ker(D
E
,
,F
,
) F
z
F
z
coker(D
E
,
,F
,
) coker(D
E
,
,F
,
)
-
Id
-
?
-
Id
?
-
6
- -
6
.
For xed gluing parameters ,
the diagram commutes up to a small error term which

is irrelevant for the purposes of orientations. The middle maps in the exact sequence
are, by denition, D
E,F
and D
E
,F
. By approximate commutativity of the diagram the
composition of the top and right maps in (28) is equal up to homotopy to (30). A similar
argument shows the same for the composition of the two maps on the other side of (28),
and this completes the proof.
3. First relative non-Abelian cohomology
If G is a (possibly non-Abelian) group and M a manifold then the rst cohomology group
H
1
(M, G) for the sheaf of smooth maps to G is well-dened and parameterizes isomorphism
classes of principal G-bundles over M, see for example Serre [11]. This section describes
an extension to the simultaneously relative case for a map f : M N and a group
homomorphism G G/Z given by quotienting by a central subgroup Z. This should also
be well-known but we were unable to nd a reference. In our application, G will be the
spin group and Z its center; an element of the relative non-Abelian cohomology group is
an isomorphism class of relative spin structures. This denition is equivalent to the one
introduced in Fukaya-Oh-Ohta-Ono [3], but it makes clear how to parameterize the possible
choices and avoids the introduction of triangulations. We thank D. Freed for teaching us
the category viewpoint on spin structures.
3.1. Denition via

Cech cochains.
Denition 3.1.1. Let Prin(G) denote the category whose objects are principal G-bundles
P M and whose morphisms are G-equivariant isomorphisms P
1
P
2
covering the
identity on M.
Prin(G) can be understood as follows using non-Abelian

Cech cohomology. Let | =
U
i
, i I be a good cover of M, that is, all multiple intersections are contractible. Let
C
j
(M, G) be the set of collections of maps
g
i
0
,...,i
j
: U
i
0
. . . U
i
j
G
and the coboundary operator dened by
: C
j
(M, G) C
j+1
(M, G), (g)
i
0
,...,i
j+1
=
j+1
j=0
g
(1)
j
i
0
,...,
b
i
j
,...,i
j+1
.
The sets C
j
(M, G) for j = 0, 1, 2 form a complex in the sense that C
0
(M, G) acts on the
left on the kernel Z
1
(M, G) of : C
1
(M, G) C
2
(M, G) by the formula
(hg)
i
0
,i
1
= h
i
0
g
i
0
,i
1
h
1
i
1
.
We denote the quotient
H
1
(M, G) = C
0
(M, G)Z
1
(M, G), H
0
(M, G) = Z
0
(M, G).
For G Abelian, the complex extends to j 2 and all cohomology groups H
j
(M, G), j =
0, 1, 2, . . . are well-dened.
Denition 3.1.2. Let H
1
(M, G) denote the category whose objects are elements of Z
1
(M, G)
and whose morphism spaces are C
0
(M, G).
The set of isomorphism classes of objects is H
1
(M, G).
Proposition 3.1.3. Prin(G) is equivalent to the category H
1
(M, G).
To construct the equivalence, given any principal G-bundle P, choose a local trivialization
of P. The transition maps for P form a cocycle c in C
1
(M, G). Similarly, any morphism
from P to P
denes a chain a in C
0
(M, G) with a c = c
. Conversely dene a functor

: H
1
(M, G) Prin(G) by gluing. The bundle obtained by locally trivializing and
then gluing is canonically isomorphic to the original one, and vice-versa, that is, , are
equivalences. This also shows that H
1
(M, G) is independent of the choice of good cover, up
to equivalence of categories.
Variation # 1: One can make the construction relative to a smooth map of manifolds
f : M N. We assume that the good cover |
M
on M is a renement of the pull-back
f
|
N
of the cover |
N
on N, and we are given a morphism of covers |
M
f
|
N
, that
is, for each U |
M
an element V |
N
such that f(U) V . By pull-back we obtain a
morphism of chain groups
f
: C
j
(N, G) C
j
(M, G).
Dene
C
j
(f, G) := C
j
(M, G) C
j+1
(N, G), (a, b) = ((a) (f
b)
(1)
j
, b).
For G Abelian the space C
j1
(f, G) acts on the space of cocycles Z
j
(f, G).
Denition 3.1.4. For G an Abelian group, let H
1
(f, G) be the category whose objects are
cocycles Z
1
(f, G), and whose morphisms are given by Hom(z, z
) = c C
0
(f, G), cz = z
,
with composition and identity given by the group structure on C
0
(f, G).
Remark 3.1.5. An element of Z
2
(N, G) denes a gerbe, see for example [1]. For G the circle
group, H
1
(f, G) is the category of relative gerbes discussed in Shahbazi [12] (using a shifted
convention for degree.)
Variation # 2: One can make the construction relative to group homomorphisms. Any
group homomorphism : G H induces a functor Prin() : Prin(G) Prin(H), by
the associated bundle construction P (P H)/G where G acts on the right on P and
by left multiplication, via , on H. For a principal H-bundle Q, let Prin(G)
Q
denote
the category of G-structures on Q whose objects are principal G-bundles together with an
isomorphism P
G
H Q, and morphisms are isomorphisms of G-bundles inducing the
trivial automorphism of Q.
We aim to give a cohomological description of Prin(G)
Q
, in the special case that is
surjective and the kernel Z is a central subgroup of G. The short exact sequence of groups
0 Z G H 0
induces a long exact sequence of sets
(31) . . . H
0
(M, H) H
1
(M, Z) H
1
(M, G) H
1
(M, H) H
2
(M, Z).
That is, H
1
(M, Z) acts transitively on the kernel of H
1
(M, G) H
1
(M, H), and the set-
theoretic kernel of H
1
(M, H) H
2
(M, Z) is equal to the image of H
1
(M, G). The map
H
1
(M, H) H
2
(M, Z) will be called the characteristic class for the short exact sequence.
Example 3.1.6. Let Spin(r) denote the universal cover of SO(r) and Pin(r)
the double
covers of O(r) whose centers are Z
2
Z
2
for Pin(r)
+
and Z
4
for Pin(r)
. The characteristic
classes for Spin(r), Pin
+
(r), Pin
(r) correspond to the Stiefel-Whitney classes w

2
, w
2
, w
2
+
w
2
1
respectively.
Let z Z
1
(M, H) be a cocycle.
Denition 3.1.7. Let H
1
(M, G, z) denote the category of

Cech G-structures on z whose
objects are cocycles a C
1
(M, G) with
(a) = z;
the set of morphisms Hom(a, a
) is the set of b C
0
(M, Z) with ba = a
;
the identity morphism is the identity 1 C
0
(M, Z);
composition is by group multiplication in C
0
(M, Z).
Proposition 3.1.8. (a) H
1
(M, G, z) depends only on the cohomology class of z, up to
equivalence of categories;
(b) H
1
(M, G, z) is non-empty if and only if the image w of z in H
2
(M, Z) is zero, and
if so:
(c) the set of isomorphism classes of objects H
1
(M, G, z) has a faithful transitive action
of H
1
(M, Z);
(d) the group of automorphisms of any object is H
0
(M, Z).
Let Q M be a principal H-bundle represented by a cocycle z Z
1
(M, H). As before,
choosing local trivializations compatible with those of Q denes an equivalence of categories
Q
: Prin(G)
Q
H
1
(M, G, z).
The category H
1
(M, G, z) can be also be described in terms of trivializations of the
corresponding characteristic class.
Denition 3.1.9. For any cocycle w Z
2
(M, Z), let H
1
(M, Z, w) denote the category of
trivializations of w whose
objects are elements c C
1
(M, Z) with c = w and
the set of morphisms Hom(c, c
) is the set of b C
0
(M, Z) with bc = c
;
composition and identity given by the group structure on C
0
(M, Z).
1
(M, Z, w) is independent under w w(u) up to an equiv-
alence of categories, given by multiplying by u;
(b) H
1
(M, Z, w) is non-empty if and only if the class of w is zero in H
2
(M, Z), and if
so:
(c) the set of isomorphism classes of objects H
1
(M, Z, w) has a faithful transitive action
of H
1
(M, Z), and
0
(M, Z).
Since the set of trivializations of w and the set of lifts of z both have faithful transitive
actions of C
1
(M, Z), and the morphisms for both categories are C
0
(M, Z), we have a (non-
canonical) equivalence of categories H
1
(M, G, z) H
1
(M, Z, w).
Example 3.1.11. Taking G = Spin(r), Z = Z
2
, we obtain that the category of spin structures
on an oriented Euclidean vector bundle E is equivalent to the category of trivializations of
its second Stiefel-Whitney class w
2
(E).
The rst and second variations can be combined as follows. Let f : M N be a smooth
map of manifolds, Z G a central subgroup of a Lie group G and : G G/Z the
projection.
Denition 3.1.12. Given a cocycle z C
1
(M, G/Z), let H
1
(f, G, z) denote the category
of

Cech relative G-structures on z whose
objects are cocycles (a, b) Z
1
(f, G) with
(a, b) = (z, 0); note that by denition

b lies in the image of C
2
(N, Z) in C
2
(N, G);
the set of morphisms Hom((a, b), (a
, b
)) is the set of h C
0
(f, Z) with h(a, b) =
(a
, b
);
the identity and composition are given by the group structure on C
0
(f, Z).
A relative G-structure on a G/Z-bundle Q M is a relative G-structure (a, b) C
1
(f, G)
on a cocycle z C
1
(M, G/Z) representing Q. We call the class [b] of b in H
2
(N, Z) the
background class of the relative G-structure.
1
(f, G, z) depends only on the cohomology class of z in H
1
(M, G/Z),
up to equivalence of categories;
(b) H
1
(f, G, z) is non-empty if and only if the image of the class of z in H
2
(M, Z) is
the pull-back of a class in H
2
(N, Z), and if so,
(c) the set of isomorphism classes is H
1
(f, Z), and
0
(f, Z).
Suppose that z C
1
(M, H) is a cocycle and w C
2
(M, Z) the coboundary of some lift
of z to C
1
(M, G). Then H
1
(f, G, z) is non-canonically equivalent to the category of relative
trivializations H
1
(f, Z, w) of the image w, that is, the category whose objects are cochains
c C
1
(f, Z) with c = w, and morphisms are chains h C
0
(f, Z).
Example 3.1.14. For G = Spin(r), Z = Z
2
, the category of relative spin structures on a
Euclidean vector bundle E is non-canonically equivalent to the category of relative trivial-
izations of its second Stiefel-Whitney class w
2
(E).
The following is included to connect the

Cech denition with that of [3].
Proposition 3.1.15. Suppose that Q M is a G/Z-bundle and R N a G/Z-bundle with
characteristic class pulling back under f
to that of Q. There is a one-to-one correspondence

between relative G-structures on Q and G
Z
G-structures on Qf
R.
Proof. Suppose that (a, b) C
1
(M, G) C
2
(N, Z) is a relative G-structure on Q. Let c
C
1
(N, G/Z) be a cocycle representing R, mapping to b C
2
(N, Z) under the coboundary
map. By denition c has a lift d C
1
(N, G) such that d = b +e, for some e C
1
(M, Z).
The chain (a, f
de) C
1
(M, G)C
1
(M, G)

= C
1
(M, GG) has boundary (f
b, f
b)
C
2
(M, ZZ). Quotienting by the antidiagonal action of Z denes a cocycle in C
1
(M, G
Z
G) whose image in C
1
(M, G/Z G/Z) represents Q f
R. Conversely, given a G
Z
G-
structure on Qf
R any lift of the form (a, f
d) C
1
(M, GG) must satisfy a = f
d,
and so denes a relative G-structure on Q with b = f
d.
In particular, if E M has a relative spin structure and V N is a bundle with
w
2
(V ) restricting to w
2
(E), then a relative spin structure is equivalent to a spin structure
on E f
V , as in [3].
3.2. Denition via classifying spaces. In this section, we describe an alternative ap-
proach using classifying maps. Let G be a compact group, and EG BG the universal
bundle. Let [M, BG] denote the space of homotopy classes of maps M BG. Assigning to
any principal G-bundle P the homotopy class of a classifying map for P denes a bijection
H
1
(M, G) [M, BG].
Variation # 1: Homotopy relative G-bundles for a smooth map . Suppose that G is Abelian
and f : M N is a smooth map. The G-bundle EG
G
EG BG BG induces a map
BG BG BG giving BG the structure of an H-space. Let B
2
G denote its classifying
space. A homotopy relative G-bundle is a homotopy class of a pair (, ) consisting of a
map : N B
2
G together with a section of the pullback BG-bundle : f
E(BG).
Variation # 2: Homotopy relative G-bundles for a group homomorphism. Suppose that 0
Z G G/Z 0 is a short exact sequence of groups, with Z a central subgroup of G. We
have an induced bration BZ BG B(G/Z) of classifying spaces. Given a G/Z bundle
Q, we denote by [M, BG]
Q
the space of homotopy classes of maps whose composition to a
map to B(G/Z) corresponds to Q. An element of [M, BG]
Q
is called a homotopy G-structure
on Q. The classifying map construction induces a bijection H
1
(M, G)
Q
[M, BG]
Q
.
One can combine the rst two variations as follows. A homotopy relative G-structure on a
G/Z-torsor Q M with a classifying map M B(G/Z) is a homotopy class of a pair (, )
consisting of a map : N B
2
Z together with a section of the associated BG-bundle
(f
E(BZ))
BZ
BG, such that the associated section of the trivial B(G/Z)-bundle is the
given classifying map for Q.
The following relates the construction to trivializations. A homotopy relative trivialization
of a map : M B
2
Z is a homotopy class of a pair (, ), consisting of a map : N B
2
Z
and a section of the BZ-bundle (f
) : M B
2
Z. Since Z is Abelian, the bration
BZ BG B(G/Z) is a BZ-torsor and induces a map B(G/Z) B
2
Z, where B
2
Z =
B(BZ) is an Eilenberg-Maclane space classifying second cohomology with coecients in Z.
Proposition 3.2.1. If G is simply-connected, then the set of homotopy relative G-structures
on a bundle given by a map M B(G/Z) is in bijection with the set of homotopy relative
trivializations of the associated characteristic class M B
2
Z.
Proof. Recall the denition of Postnikov truncation: Given a space X with the homotopy
type of a CW-complex, the Postnikov tower for X is a sequence
. . . X
n
X
n1
. . . X
1
constructed from X inductively by attaching cells to kill the higher dimensional homotopy
groups, so that
j
(X
n
)

=
_

j
(X
n
) j n
0 otherwise
_
.
The Postnikov construction is functorial and so induces maps
BZ (BG)
3
(B(G/Z))
3
B
2
Z.
Suppose that G is 1-connected. Then BG is 2-connected, hence (BG)
3
is trivial and so
B(G/Z)
3
and B
2
Z are homotopic. In this case, any G-structure on Q denes a trivialization
of the characteristic class .
More generally, suppose that f : M N is a smooth map and a G/Z-bundle Q is
equipped with a homotopy relative G-structure. The BZ-torsor : N B
2
Z induces a
map of sections
[N, BZ] [N,
E(BZ)] [N, B(G/Z)] [N, B

2
Z]
where the last map is induced by the map B(G/Z) B
2
Z, followed by multiplication by
. We can now apply Postnikov truncation to the bers, to get a sequence
[N, BZ] [N,
3
] [N, (B(G/Z))
3
] [N, B
2
Z].
Pulling back to M we get a sequence
[M, BZ] [M, f
3
] [M, B(G/Z))
3
] [M, B
2
Z].
where the last map is the composition of B(G/Z)
3
B
2
Z with multiplication by f
.
Now since BG
3
is a homotopy point, f
3
is also and any relative G-structure gives rise to
a trivialization of f
, that is, a relative trivialization of . Since the higher homotopy

groups of B
2
Z vanish, this correspondence is a bijection.
The extension of these notions to group bundles is left to the reader.
3.3. Relative spin structures.
3.3.1. Operations on relative spin structures. Relative spin structures were dened in Exam-
ple 3.1.14. Let V, W be oriented Euclidean vector spaces and SO(V ), SO(W) their groups
of automorphisms. The group homomorphisms SO(V )SO(W) SO(V W), SO(V )
SO(V

) lift to the corresponding Spin groups and induce functors
Prin(Spin(V )) Prin(Spin(W)) Prin(Spin(V W))
Prin(Spin(V )) Prin(Spin(V

)).
These operations extend to relative spin structures as functors
H
1
(f, Spin(V ))
E
H
1
(f, Spin(W))
F
H
1
(f, Spin(V W))
EF
H
1
(f, Spin(V ))
E
H
1
(f, Spin(V
))
E
.
We will also need the following doubling construction. If E M is an oriented vector
bundle then the direct sum EE has a canonical spin structure, induced from the canonical
lift of the diagonal embedding SO(V ) SO(V V ) to Spin(V V ). That is, there is a
canonical functor
(32) Prin(SO(V )) Prin(Spin(V V )).
3.3.2. Classication theorem on surfaces.
Proposition 3.3.1. Suppose that S is a compact, oriented surface with boundary S, and
Q S is an SO(r)-bundle. There is a bijection between isomorphism classes of relative
spin structures on Q for the inclusion S S, homotopy classes of stable trivializations of
Q, and isomorphism classes of stable spin structures on Q.
Proof. Let f : S S be the inclusion of the boundary. Since S is two-dimensional,
any cohomology class w H
2
(S, Z
2
) is the second Stiefel-Whitney class of some bundle
(since the third Postnikov truncation of BSpin is BZ
2
). From Proposition 3.1.15 (or the
homotopy denition) we obtain a bundle R S together with a spin structure on Qf
R.
We may assume that S is non-empty, since otherwise the statement is vacuous. Thus S
is homotopy equivalent to a bouquet of circles. Since
2
(S) is trivial, the bundle R S
is trivial and so the relative spin structure gives a stable trivialization of S. If S is a disk,
then the trivialization of R (and therefore also the stable trivialization of S) is unique
up to homotopy. In general, two stable trivializations dier by a map S SO. Since
[S, SO]

= [S, (SO)
2
]

= H
1
(S, Z
2
), there is no longer a distinguished stable trivialization.
However, the image of H
1
(S, Z
2
) H
1
(S, Z
2
) is trivial, which implies that f
R has a
distinguished trivialization. Hence S has a distinguished stable trivialization. Conversely,
any stable trivialization of S induces a relative spin structure (by taking R to be the
trivial) bundle and this gives the rst bijection. The second bijection is well-known; it
follows since Spin() is 2-connected implies that BSpin() is 3-connected, and so any
map S BSpin() is homotopic to a constant map, by a homotopy that is unique up
to homotopy of homotopies.
4. Orientations for Cauchy-Riemann operators, continued
In this section we dene orientations for Cauchy-Riemann operators from an orientation
and relative spin structure on the totally real boundary condition, and investigate their
behavior under gluing.
4.1. Construction of orientations.
Proposition 4.1.1. Suppose that S B is a family of nodal surfaces without strip-like
ends, (E, F) B is a family of complex vector bundles E S with oriented totally real
boundary conditions F E[
S
, and D
E,F
a family of real Cauchy-Riemann operators for
(S, E, F). A relative spin structure for the bundle F S, if it exists, denes an orientation
for the determinant line bundle det(D
E,F
) B.
Here B is a smooth open base, so S =
bB
S
b
is a bundle over B whose bres are the
boundaries of the bres of S.
Proof of Proposition 4.1.1.
Orientations for families of smooth, closed surfaces: Suppose that S B is a family of
smooth surfaces without boundary or strip-like ends. Consider a family D
E
of real Cauchy-
Riemann operators acting on sections of a family of complex vector bundles E S. Since
the space of real Cauchy-Riemann operators is an ane space containing the complex linear
Cauchy-Riemann operators, there exists a homotopy from D
E
to a family of complex linear
operators D
E
. The complex structure on the kernels and cokernels of D
E
induce orientations
for D
E
, which pull back under the isomorphism of determinant lines det(D
E
) det(D
E
) to
orientations of D
E
. Any two homotopies are related by a homotopy of homotopies, since the
spaces of real Cauchy-Riemann operators and complex-linear Cauchy-Riemann operators
are contractible. Hence the orientation on det(D
E
) is independent of the choice of D
E
and
homotopy to D
E
.
Figure 1. Pinching o a set of disks
Orientations for smooth, compact surfaces with boundary: Suppose that B = pt and S is
a smooth, compact surface with boundary. From the relative spin structure on F we obtain
a stable trivialization of F S, by Proposition 3.3.1. Since
0
(O(n)) = Z
2
for any n, F
admits a trivialization.
First we x a trivialization of F and construct an orientation for D
E,F
; later we will
show that the orientation depends only on the homotopy class of stable trivializations.
The real Cauchy-Riemann operator D
E,F
acts on sections of E S with totally real
boundary conditions F E[
S
. The trivialization F

= R
n
S induces a trivialization
E[
S
= F iF

= C
n
S, which extends to a neighborhood U S of S. Deform
the complex structure on S to a nodal surface

S by pinching o a disk for each boundary
component, as follows. Choose the neighbourhood U =
i
U
i
S as disjoint union of annuli
U
i

= [1, 1] S
1
with S U
i

= 1 S
1
. Replacing U
i
with annuli of increasing radius
produces a family of surfaces, whose limit is the nodal surface obtained by replacing U
i
with
two disks D
i
D
+
i
glued at an interior node z
i
, z
+
i
, z
i
= 0 D
i
, z
+
i
= 0 D
+
i
. Here
D
+
i
is the unit disk with standard complex structure j
std
and boundary D
+
i
identied with
1 S
1
U
i
, whereas D
i
is the unit disk with complex structure j
std
and boundary
D
i
identied with 1 S
1
U
i
. So the nodal surface

S is given by the resolution
=

S
main

S
disk
, consisting of a closed surface

S
main
= (S U)
i
D
i
and a union of
disks

S
disk
=
i
D
+
i
, and a collection of interior nodes Z = z
i
, z
+
i
between z
i

S
main
and z
+
i

S
disk
, see Figure 1. This pinching also induces a complex vector bundle

E

S
and totally real boundary condition

F as follows: Let

E
main

S
main
be the complex
vector bundle dened by gluing together E[
S\U
(which is trivialized

= C
n
i
D
i
on the
boundary) with the trivial bundle on
i
D
i
. Let

E
disk
denote the trivial bundle C
n
i
D
+
i
and

F

E
disk
[
S
disk
the trivial bundle R
n

i
D
+
i
= F. Then

E

S is given by
:=

E
main

E
disk

S
and identication at the nodes Z, and

F =

F
disk
is given by

F
.
Conversely, (S, E, F) is obtained from (
S,

E,

F) by gluing at the interior nodes. So by (27)
we have an isomorphism of determinant lines det(D
E,
F
) det(D
E,F
), and combined with
(11), (13), and (14) we obtain an isomorphism
(33) det(D
E,F
)
max
_
z
+
i
_
det(D
,

F
).
Here the rst factor is oriented by the complex structure on

E
z
+
i
, and the second factor
decomposes into det(D
) = det(D
E
main
D
E
disk
,
F
disk
)

= det(D
E
main
) det(D
E
disk
,

F
disk
).
The operator D
E
main
has an orientation given by the previous step, since

S
main
is smooth
and closed. On the other hand, by construction the operator D
E
disk
,
F
disk
is the direct sum
of real Cauchy-Riemann operators on the standard bundles (C
n
, R
n
) over the disk. After
a homotopy, these are the standard Cauchy-Riemann operators, which are surjective and
whose kernel ker D
E
disk
,
F
disk
=
i
R
n
is isomorphic to a sum of bers
i
F
z
i
of

F
disk

= F,
via evaluation at points s
i
D
+
i
S on the boundary. The orientation of the boundary
condition F (induced by the trivialization) thus denes an orientation on D
E
disk
,
F
disk
. The
orientation on D
E,F
is induced from the isomorphism (33).
The construction of the orientation involved several auxiliary choices: the trivialization
of F, the extension of the induced trivialization of E to the neighborhood U, and the choice
of coordinates on U. Any two choices of extensions and coordinates on U are homotopic.
Any two trivializations of F S dier by a map : S SO(rank(F)). Hence there are
two trivializations up to homotopy for each boundary component if rank(F) > 2, innitely
many if rank(F) = 2, and a unique trivialization if rank(F) = 1. This means that there are
two stable homotopy classes of stable trivializations of F, for any rank. We claim that the
orientation on D
E,F
depends only on the stable homotopy equivalence class of the stable
trivialization dened by the chosen trivialization of F.
First, consider two choices of extensions and coordinates, and a homotopic pair of triv-
ializations of F. From the homotopies we obtain continuous families of nodal surfaces
and bundles

S
t
,

E
t
,

F
t
, Cauchy-Riemann operators D
Et,
Ft
, and isomorphisms det(D
E,F
)
det(D
Et,
Ft
) for t [0, 1]. The construction xes an orientation for each det(D
Et,
Ft
) from
the orientations for the nodal bres (

E
t
)
z
i
+
(t)
, the operators D
(

E
main
)t
on complex bundles
over closed surfaces, and the operators D
(

E
disk
)t,(

F
disk
)t
on trivial bundles over disks. Each
of these orientations is continuous in families, hence the orientations on det(D
Et,
Ft
) vary
continuously in t. It follows that the map det(D
E
0
,
F
0
) det(D
E
1
,
F
1
) induced by the homo-
topy of operators (D
Et,
Ft
)
t[0,1]
preserves the given orientations. The composition of this
map with det(D
E,F
) det(D
E
0
,
F
0
) is homotopic to det(D
E,F
) det(D
E
1
,
F
1
), and hence
the two isomorphisms induce the same orientation on det(D
E,F
).
Finally, it remains to check that trivializations of F which are homotopic after stabiliza-
tion also dene the same orientation on D
E,F
. (For rank(F) > 2 there is nothing to show,
since the trivializations are homotopic i they are stably homotopic.) Let F
triv
be the trivial
R
k
-bundle over S, E
triv
the trivial C
k
-bundle over S, and consider two trivializations of F
such that the induced trivializations of F
triv
F are homotopic. By the previous discussion
these trivializations dene the same orientation for D
E
triv
E,F
triv
F
:= D
E
triv
,F
triv
D
E,F
,
where D
E
triv
,F
triv
is the standard Cauchy-Riemann operator. On the other hand, our
construction using the canonical trivialization for F
triv
and a given trivialization for F
separately, and then applying the direct sum isomorphism (1) provides an orientation of
det(D
E
triv
,F
triv
) det(D
E,F
)

= det(D
E
triv
E,F
triv
F
), which is related to the previous one
by a universal sign, that only depends on the combinatorics of the surface and the ranks
of the bundles. Since the rst orientation was the same for both trivializations of F, the
orientation for D
E,F
must also be the same for both trivializations.
Orientations for families of smooth, compact surfaces with boundary: It suces to show that
the orientations for det(D
E,F
)
b
, b B constructed above vary continuously in B. For this it
suces to consider family S B of smooth surfaces with B contractible. A trivialization
of F S induces a trivialization of E near the boundary S. Deforming the conformal
structure on S B as in the previous step produces a family of nodal surfaces

S B,
which consists of a disk bundle

S
disk
B, a family of closed surfaces

S
main
B (obtained
by gluing a disk bundle to S), and identications of

S
disk
and

S
main
at families of interior
nodes. This deformation provides an isomorphism of determinant line bundles
det(D
E,F
) det(D
E,
F
)
max
_
z
+
i
_
det(D
E
main
) det(D
E
disk
,
F
disk
),
which denes the orientation on det(D
E,F
) by pullback from the right hand side. These
orientations vary continuously: The orientation on the rst factor is induced from the
complex structure on

E
z
+
i
B, on the second factor it is given by the previous construction
for families of closed surfaces, and the third factor is isomorphic (using a homotopy to the
standard Cauchy-Riemann operator on disks) to det(
i
F
z
i
) for a smooth family of boundary
points s
i
S in each connected component. These bres of F S are oriented by
assumption, inducing a continuous orientation on det(D
E
disk
,
F
disk
) and hence on det(D
E,F
).
General denition of orientations: Finally, we consider a general family of nodal (but
compact) surfaces S B and real Cauchy-Riemann operators D
E,F
for families of complex
vector bundles E S and totally real boundary conditions F. This family of operators is
given by identications of families of nodes from a family of real Cauchy-Riemann operators
D
E
,F
for families of bundles E
and F
over the family of smooth resolutions

S
B. We x a trivialization of F, that is a trivialization of F
which is compatible
with the identications at nodes. From (11), (13), and (14) we have a bundle isomorphism
(34) det(D
E,F
)
max
_
i
E
z
+
i
j
F
w
+
j
_
det(D
E
,F
)
Here an orientation on D
E
,F
is given by the previous step, the complex bers of E are
naturally oriented, and the bers of F are oriented by assumption. Hence this isomorphism
denes orientations on D
E,F
.
Now we construct orientations for Cauchy-Riemann operators on surfaces with strip-
like ends. Fix S
1
to be the once-punctured disk with a complex structure such that a
neighbourhood of the puncture corresponds to an incoming strip-like end. We identify its
boundary S
1

= R, preserving the orientation.
Denition 4.1.2. Let (E, F
, F
+
, H) be a tuple consisting of a complex vector space E and
a pair (F
, F
+
) of transverse, oriented, totally real subspaces of half-dimension, equipped
with spin structures, and H a normal form for a Cauchy-Riemann operator on the strip as
in (10). An orientation for (E, F
, F
+
, H) consists of
(a) a smooth path : R Real(E) of totally real subspaces connecting () = F
;
it is identied with a totally real boundary condition E S
1
for the trivial
bundle E S
1
,
(b) a real Cauchy-Riemann operator D
on S
1
for sections with values in the trivial
bundle E and boundary values in , with asymptotic limit given by H;
(c) an orientation for D
;
(d) a spin structure on , extending the given spin structures on F
, F
+
.
Let S be a surface with strip-like ends, S the surface obtained by adding the points at
innity, E S a complex vector bundle and F E[
S
totally real boundary conditions.
For each end e c(S), the corresponding point at innity is z
e
S, and the two real
boundary conditions meeting it are F
e
, F
e1
. By assumption, these are constant transverse
subspaces, F
e,0
F
e,1
= E
e
over the strip-like end. We suppose that that we have chosen spin
structures on the bers F
e,0
, F
e,1
at innity, and set of asymptotic limits H = (H
e
, e c(S)).
Denition 4.1.3. An orientation for (S, E, F, H) is a tuple of disk orientations (
e
, D
e
, o
e
, Spin(
e
))
for (E
e
, F
e,0
, F
e,1
, H
e
) for each e c(S).
By a relative spin structure on F, we mean a stable spin structure extending the given
stable spin structures on F
e,0
, F
e,1
at innity on each end e c(S).
Proposition 4.1.4. Let S B be a family of nodal surfaces with strip like ends, and
E B a family of complex vector bundles with totally real boundary conditions F B.
A choice of a relative spin structure on F, if it exists, and orientations for the ends of
(S, E, F, H) induce an orientation of the determinant line bundle det(D
E,F
) B.
Proof. First consider the case that the boundary of S is connected. On each strip-like end e
consider the deformation of the boundary conditions F
e,
on a neighborhood of innity to
the boundary condition formed by concatenating the restriction of with
1
, which has a
canonical deformation to the boundary condition with constant value (). The resulting
boundary value problem is obtained by deformation of the nodes of a nodal surface S with
vector bundles E, F obtained by gluing together the problems (E
e
, F
e,0
, F
e,1
, H
e
) and a
problem (D, E, F) on a closed (possibly nodal) surface obtained by gluing (E
e
, F
e,0
, F
e,1
)
onto (E, F), see Figure 2. The nodal surface

S has a canonical order of components given
by taking the ordering of the additional components to be the one given by the strip-like
ends, and ordering of the boundary nodes so that the original component is ordered rst.
Let (

E,

F) denote the vector bundles on the nodal surface. (15) gives an isomorphism of
determinant lines
(35) det(D) det(

D).
From (14) we obtain an identication
(36) det(

D)
eE
det(D
e
)
max
(
e
(0)
) det(D)
eE
+
max
(
e
(0)
eE
+
det(D
+
e
)
where
e
(0) is the ber given by evaluation the corresponding path
e
at 0, and the order
of the two products over c
is reversed. This choice of order means that when gluing, we

Figure 2. Pinching o the strip-like ends
Figure 3. Ordering of determinant lines
obtain a product over ends of an incoming end, and outgoing end, and a determinant line of
a dualized ber, each of which is canonically trivial leaving a product of determinant lines
of dualized bers. Note that we have chosen an ordering for the determinant lines which
is not a special case of the convention for nodal surfaces. The relative spin structure on F
and the bundles
e
dene a spin structure on F, hence an orientation on the corresponding
index by Proposition 4.1.1.
In the case that S is disconnected, we dene the orientation on S as a product of ex-
pressions in the right hand side of (36), ordering the nodes at the outgoing ends after the
determinant line of the closed surface corresponding to each boundary component, and
each group consisting of determinant line for a closed surface and its outgoing nodes, in the
reverse of the given order on boundary components. See Figure 3 for the ordering of the
determinant lines for a surface with strip-like ends with two components.
missing g
4.2. Eect of re-ordering on orientations. The following theorem describes the eect
of changing the ordering of boundary components, boundary nodes, or strip-like ends.
Theorem 4.2.1. (Behavior of orientations under reordering) Let S be a nodal surface with
strip-like ends and D
E,F
a Cauchy-Riemann operator.
(a) Suppose that S
is a nodal surface obtained by re-ordering a boundary node (w

+
, w
)
(w
, w
+
), and D
E,F
is a Cauchy-Riemann operator obtained from D
E,F
. The iso-
morphism det(D
E,F
) det(D
E,F
) of determinant lines induced by the isomorphism
of kernel and cokernel acts on orientations by (1)
rank(F)
.
(b) Suppose that S
is a nodal surface obtained by transposing two components S

i
, S
j
of
S. The isomorphism det(D
E,F
) det(D
E,F
) of determinant lines induced by the
isomorphism of kernel and cokernel acts on orientations by (1)
Ind(D
E
i
,F
i
) Ind(D
E
j
,F
j
)
.
(c) Suppose that S
is a nodal surface obtained by re-ordering the boundary compo-

nents (resp. boundary nodes) by a permutation . The isomorphism det(D
E,F
)
det(D
E,F
) of determinant lines induced by the isomorphism of kernel and cokernel
acts on orientations by det()
rank(F)
.
(d) Suppose that S
is a nodal surface obtained by transposing a pair e, e
of consec-
utive strip-like ends. The isomorphism det(D
E,F
) det(D
E,F
) of determinant
lines induced by the isomorphism of kernel and cokernel acts on orientations by
(1)
Ind(De) Ind(D
e
)
.
Proof. By the behavior of determinant lines under permutations (2), the behavior of the
isomorphism with the trivial determinant (3), and the denition of the orientation on nodal
surfaces (14).
4.3. Eect of gluing on orientations. We now determine the signs induced by the gluing
of Cauchy-Riemann operators. Let S be a nodal surface with strip-like ends, and

S a nodal
surface obtained by either deforming away a boundary node, deforming away an interior
node, or gluing together two strip-like ends. Let E be a complex vector bundle with totally
real boundary condition F, and

E,

F the vector bundles on

F obtained by gluing. Similarly
let D
E,F
be a real Cauchy-Riemann operator with non-degenerate limits along the strip-like
ends, and D
E,
F
an operator obtained by gluing. In the case that

S is obtained by gluing
together two strip-like ends e
, we assume that the limits H

e
along the glued ends e
are equal after identication of the bers. Let D

e
denote Cauchy-Riemann operators on
the caps S
e
added to the outgoing and incoming ends in (35). By gluing together the
caps S
e
we obtain a surface

S homeomorphic to the disk with pair (

E,

F) of Maslov index
zero. By the previous construction the Cauchy-Riemann operator

D
e
is equipped with an
orientation.
Denition 4.3.1. We say that the orientations are chosen compatibly if the orientations
on D
e
have been chosen so that the gluing isomorphism
(37) det(D
e
) det(D
e
+) det(

D
e
)
is orientation preserving.
Suppose that a surface S is obtained from S by gluing. In the case of gluing boundary
nodes or strip-like ends we assume that the boundary components joined by the gluing are
adjacent in ordering; then we give the boundary components of S the ordering obtained by
inserting the new boundary component(s) in place of the old in the ordered sequence. The
following theorem describes the eect of gluing on orientations, in this special case.
Theorem 4.3.2. (Behavior of orientations under gluing)
(a) For smooth deformation (gluing) at interior nodes, the isomorphism of determinant
lines constructed in Section 2.4 is orientation preserving,
(b) For smooth deformation (gluing) at a boundary node for a nodal surface with a single
node (w
+
, w
) joining two distinct boundary components adjacent in ordering (resp.

a node (w
+
, w
) joining a single boundary component) the isomorphism of deter-

minant lines constructed in Section 2.4 acts on orientations by a sign (1)
rank(F)
,
with positive sign i the ordering of w
, w
+
agrees with the ordering of the boundary
components for the pre-glued surface (reps. the ordering of the boundary components
of the glued surface has the boundary component corresponding to the segment from
w
to w
+
ordered rst.)
(c) For gluing of strip-like ends of distinct components S
, S
+
, assume that S
have
connected boundary, the orientations on D
e
have been chosen compatibly, the end

e
+
is the last outgoing end of S
and the end e
is the rst incoming end of S

+
,
and the ordering of the ends on the glued surface is induced by the ordering of ends
on S
, S
+
. Then isomorphism of determinant lines constructed in Section 2.4 acts
on orientations by a sign (1)
rank(F)
with positive sign in (1) i the ordering of
e
, e
+
is (e
, e
+
), times
(1)
(
P
eE
(S
+
){e
}
rank(F)Ind(De))(
P
fE
+
(S
){e
+
}
rank(F)Ind(D
f
))
times
(1)
(
P
fE
+
(S
+
)
rank(F))(
P
fE
+
(S
){e
+
}
rank(F)Ind(D
f
))
.
In particular, for one outgoing end or one incoming end and ordering (e
, e
+
), the
gluing sign is positive.
(d) If the outgoing ends of S
are simultaneously glued to the incoming ends of S
, and
the orientations are chosen compatibly then the gluing sign is equal to the sign for
gluing of S
, S
+
along boundary nodes, one for each strip-like end.
Proof. Interior Gluing: Let S
denote the smooth surface associated to S, and E
, F
the
corresponding vector bundles. First we assume that S
has empty boundary. A deformation

of D
E
,F
to a complex-linear operator produces a similar deformation for the smooth
surface and bundles associated to

S. The gluing isomorphism (27) induces an identication
of determinant lines for each bundle in the homotopy. Since the identication of determinant
lines for the complex-linear operators is complex linear, the identication of determinant
lines is orientation-preserving, for each bundle in the homotopy.
If S
has non-empty boundary, a deformation of (E
, F
) to the connect sum of a problem

on a closed surface

S
main
, glued to a trivial problem on a union of disks

S
disk
, induces a
corresponding deformation for the glued problem (

E,

F). Compatibility of orientations for
gluing closed surfaces implies that the gluing map is orientation preserving.
Boundary Gluing: Suppose that (w
+
, w
) is a boundary node of S, and

S,

E,

F a surface and
bundles obtained by deforming the node. Consider the diagram of indices shown in Figure
4; for self-gluing of a disk, see also Figure 5.
1
,
2
are the gluing maps for the determinant
lines for

S
main

S
disk
to those of S and

S
main

S
disk
to S, and are orientation preserving
by denition. The surface S
deg
at bottom left is obtained by rst gluing at the boundary,
and then degenerating the circles used for the degeneration of S. The gluing map
3
for
S
deg,+
S
deg,
to S
deg
is orientation preserving by denition. The map represents gluing
of a collection of disks equipped with trivialized boundary condition, while ,
2
represent
gluing at an interior node and so are orientation preserving by the previous section. Both
the lower square and the upper left triangle in the diagram commute by associativity of
gluing in Section 2.4. Therefore, the map
1
representing gluing of determinant lines from
S to S, induces the same sign on orientations as .

Suppose that S is obtained from a pair S
of disks by joining them at a boundary node

w
. The operator D
E
,F
has kernel isomorphic to F
w
F
w
(via the two evaluation maps
on the boundary) and vanishing cokernel. The reduced operator is
(38) D
red
E,F
: F
w
F
w
F
w
, (f
, f
) f
+
f
.
The ordering of the factors is determined by the ordering of the boundary components of S.
By (3) and (25) the induced map det(D
red
E,F
) det(D
E,
F
) changes the dened orientations
by a sign (S,

S, rank(F)) = (1)
rank(F)
depending on whether the ordering of the pair w
agrees with the ordering of the boundary components of S
.
3
Figure 4. Gluing at a boundary point
Suppose that S is a single disk, joined to itself via a pair of points w
on the boundary.
The boundary component is split into two, as in Figure 5. On the normalization S
we have
Figure 5. Gluing a disk to itself
ker(D
E
,F
) isomorphic to F
w
via evaluation at a boundary point and trivial cokernel. The
reduced operator is
(39) D
red
E,F
: F
w
F
w
, f 0.
The kernel is isomorphic to F
w
and the cokernel is isomorphic to F
w
. The deformed
surface

S is an annulus, equipped with trivial bundles

E,

F. The orientation for D
E,
F
is
induced from pinching o a pair of disks, so that S
2
is obtained by joining two disks and
a sphere at interior points. One has to choose the ordering of boundary components on

S;
this induces an ordering of the nodes z
, z
+
of S
2
. On the normalization S
2
the reduced
operator can be identied with
D
red
E
2
,F
2
: F
z
E
z
F
z
+ E
z
E
z
+, (f
, e, f
+
) (f
e, f
+
e).
The kernel is isomorphic to F
z
, via evaluation at any boundary point, and the cokernel is
isomorphic to E
z
/F
z
= iF
z
, via projection onto the second factor of the codomain. Let
e
1
, . . . , e
n
, f
1
, . . . , f
2n
, g
1
, . . . , g
n
F
z
+ E
z
F
z
be a basis for the domain and

h
1
, . . . , h
2n
, i
1
, . . . , i
2n
E
z
E
z
+
a basis for the codomain so that
D
red
E
2
,F
2
: e
j
h
j
, f
j
h
j
i
j
, g
j
i
j
.
The isomorphism (3) induces for the zero operator the orientation dened by the basis
(40) i
2n
. . . i
n+1
(h
2n
)
. . . (h
n+1
)
(i
n
)
. . . (i
1
)
n
. . . h
1
e
1
. . . e
n
f
1
. . . f
2n
(e
1
+f
1
+g
1
) . . . (e
n
+f
n
+g
n
).
This diers from the standard orientation for the zero operator by a sign (1)
rank(F)
2
=
(1)
rank(F)
. In order to compare the two orientations coming from deforming the nodal
surfaces S, S
2
, we compare the identications of the kernel and cokernel with F
w
, F
w
(resp. F
w
, iF
w
.) The isomorphisms of the kernel with F
w
are both given by evaluation
at a boundary point, and so identical. The isomorphism of the cokernel with F
w
is given
by evaluation at a boundary point on the strip-like neck, see Figure 6, for S, and for a point
on one of the cylindrical necks, for S
2
. By construction, the bundle

E is trivial. Choose a
Figure 6. Two kinds of neck
homotopy between the two conformal structures on the annulus. Taking the trivial bundle
over the homotopy, we obtain a family of indices each with kernel and cokernel isomorphic to
F
w
. We can also deform the evaluation maps to all lie on the boundary, without changing
the induced orientations. It remains to compare the various trivializations of the cotangent
bundle used in (29). For the surface S, the local coordinates depend on the ordering of
the pair w
. In the Figure we suppose that w
resp. w
+
is the point on the left resp.
right of the neck. Thus the local coordinate is (in the coordinates s, t on the page) s + it
if w
is numbered rst, and s it if w

+
is numbered second. On the other hand, the
coordinates on the cylindrical neck are (on the intersection of the two necks) t is. Thus
the second trivializations is related to the rst by composition with multiplication by i
if w
is ordered rst. It follows that the gluing map acts by the sign (1)
rank(F)
, if w
is
ordered rst.
Gluing of strip-like ends: First, we consider the case of a disconnected surface S = S
S
+
with a single pair of strip-like ends, and E S a complex vector bundle over S equipped
with totally real boundary conditions F. Given ends e
, e
+
and an identication of the
corresponding bers (E
e
+
, F
e
+
) (E
e
, F
e
), let

S denote the surface obtained by gluing
S together along the ends, and (

E,

F) the elliptic boundary value problem obtained by
gluing E, F. See for example Figure 3 of [14]. Adding in the points at innity gives surfaces
without strip-like ends
S = S
_
e
s
e
,

S =

S
_
e=e
s
e
.
Choose an ordering of the boundary components of

S. The strip-like ends of S inherit an
ordering from the ordering of the ends of S. We claim that the isomorphism of determinant
lines from S to

S has the same sign as the isomorphisms of determinant lines from S to
S. Consider the diagram of indices shown in Figure 7. The top left picture represents
det(D
E,F
). The map
1
represents the isomorphism of determinant lines induced by de-
forming the boundary conditions F
as above. The map

2
represents the isomorphism
of determinant lines induced by gluing on the orientations. The maps
3
,
4
,
5
are gluing
isomorphisms for the gluing of strip-like ends. The map
6
again represents a deformation,
and
7
the isomorphism induced by gluing along two points on the boundary. The rst
square in the diagram commutes because deformation commutes with gluing; the second
by associativity of gluing for determinant lines. By denition the composition of
1
,
2
is
1
2
3

4

5
6
Figure 7. Orientations for gluing strip-like ends
orientation preserving.
5
is orientation preserving by construction, and
6
is orientation
preserving since it is induced by a deformation. Hence
3
has the same sign as
7
. By
denition
7
is the composition of gluing isomorphisms for resolution of the rst, then sec-
ond boundary node. By the discussion above, by choosing the ordering of the boundary
components so that the disk boundary is ordered rst and boundary nodes so that the node
on the disk is ordered rst, we can insure that the rst gluing isomorphism is orientation
preserving, and the resulting surface is S. Hence
3
has the same sign as the isomorphism
of determinants induced by the second gluing operation. By part (b), this has the sign
claimed in the statement of part (c).
The additional signs in the case of multiple ends arise from permuting the remaining
outgoing ends and nodes of the S
, with the incoming ends and nodes of S

+
, and also
the outgoing ends of S
with the nodes associated to the outgoing ends of S

+
, per the
convention (36). Note that the sign resulting from permuting the remaining incoming ends
of S
+
past the caps and nodes for e
and determinant line on the closed surface S
is 1,
being (1)
3 rank(F)+Ind(De
)+Ind(De
+
)
= (1)
4 rank(F)
.
4.4. Orientations for quilted Cauchy-Riemann operators. Recall from [14] that a
quilted surface with strip-like ends is a collection of surfaces S with strip-like ends with
some boundary components identied. Let S B be a family of quilted surfaces possibly
with strip-like ends and (E, F) S a family of complex vector bundles over the components
together with totally real subbundles over the boundary components and seams. Let D
E,F
be a family of Cauchy-Riemann operators for (E, F). The basic idea of the construction
of orientation for D
E,F
is to deform everything to split form. There are two steps: rst
the deformation of the operators and boundary and seam conditions at innity along the
strip-like ends, and then the boundary and seam conditions in the interior. Since the
conditions at innity are constant over the base B, it suces to show the existence of some
deformation; of course the orientations constructed will depend on this choice. One rst
deforms the asymptotic operators to ones with trivial zero-th order term, through a family
of non-degenerate operators. (That is, one turns the perturbation o, while keeping the
boundary and seam conditions transversal.)
Both steps depend on the following lemma:
Lemma 4.4.1. The map of totally real Grassmannians U(n
1
)/SO(n
1
) U(n
1
+n
2
)/SO(n
1
+
n
2
) induces an isomorphism of fundamental groups, and except in the case n
1
= 1, an iso-
morphism of second homotopy groups.
Proof. By the long exact sequence of homotopy groups and the isomorphisms
1
(SO(n
1
))
1
(SO(n
1
+n
2
)), n
1
> 1 and
1
(U(n
1
))
1
(U(n
1
+n
2
)).
Proposition 4.4.2. A relative spin structure on F, deformation of the asymptotic boundary
and seam conditions to split form, and orientations for the ends of each component together
induce an orientation on the determinant line bundle det(D
E,F
) B.
Proof. For simplicity, we assume that the Hamiltonian perturbations on the strip-like ends
vanish. We may assume that the ranks of the bundles are at least two, after stabilizing by
adding trivial bundles. By the Lemma, there exists a deformation of the seam conditions
on the strip-like ends to split form in (U(
n
j
)/SO(
n
j
))
2
, where n
1
, . . . , n
k
are the
dimensions of the boundary and seam conditions, such that the path has Maslov index
zero. Any such path has a deformation with no crossing points, that is, so that every set
of conditions in the deformation are transversal. This deformation produces an family of
Fredholm operators, and hence an isomorphism of determinant line of the original problem
with the problem with split form on each strip-like end. Using the Lemma again, the given
path can be deformed into a path in partially split form, that is, a path into
U(n
1
)/SO(n
1
) U(n
1
+n
2
)/SO(n
1
+n
2
) . . . U(n
k
)/SO(n
k
)
uniquely up to homotopy of homotopies. We apply the Lemma a nal and third time to
homotope the seam conditions to a set of boundary and seam conditions F
split
of split form
over the entire surface. The index problem on (E, F
split
) splits into a sum of problems on
the various components, and by the unquilted case we obtain orientations on the various
determinant lines. These are then pulled back under the deformations to an orientation on
the determinant line on the original family of operators.
Recall that for a disconnected unquilted surface, the orientation constructed on a Cauchy-
Riemann operator depends on an ordering of the components. In particular for a quilted
surface, the orientation depends on an ordering of the components. However,
Proposition 4.4.3. If S is connected and D
E,F
has index zero resp. one then the orienta-
tion on D
E,F
is independent of the ordering of the components of S.
Proof. Since the orientation constructed is independent of the choice of deformation to split
form, we may deform F to boundary bundles of split form such that the index is zero on
each resp. all but one patch of S. Then the determinant lines for all component commute,
see Proposition 4.2.1.
Finally we discuss the eect of gluing on orientations. In the quilted case, there are four
types of gluing to consider: gluing at the interior, gluing on the true boundary, gluing at the
seams, and gluing along strip-like ends. These reduce to the corresponding gluing operations
on disconnected unquilted surfaces, after deformation of the boundary conditions to split
form. Suppose that D
E,F
has index zero or one; then we can nd a split deformation so that
the index is one on at most one of the unquilted components. Then the determinant lines
corresponding to the various unquilted operators commute. Permuting the components to
be glued adjacent in the ordering and applying the gluing operation for the unquilted case
results in a collection of operators that again have at most one with index 1, and permuting
the components into the desired ordering does not change the gluing sign. Hence the gluing
sign is the product of gluing signs for the unquilted components. In particular, in the case
that S
, S
+
are obtained by thickening the boundary of an unquilted surface, and S
has
a single outgoing end, this convention leads to a positive sign in the gluing rule, which gives
the associativity relation in the generalized Donaldson-Fukaya category.
5. Orientations for pseudoholomorphic surfaces
5.1. Relative spin structures for sequences of Lagrangians and the toggle functor.
Let L = (L
0
, . . . , L
d
) be a sequence of oriented Lagrangian submanifolds in M. A relative
spin structure for (L
0
, . . . , L
d
) is a relative spin structure for the immersion L
0
. . . L
d

M. In particular, this means that each L
j
has a relative spin structure with the same
background class.
Dene an involution on the set of relative spin structures on a Lagrangian submanifold
L as follows. The bundle TM has a canonical splitting (up to homotopy) after restriction
to any Lagrangian submanifold L: TM[L

= TL TL. It follows from (32) that TM[L has
a canonical spin structure, up to isomorphism.
Denition 5.1.1. Two relative spin structures for L are equivalent mod TM if the sec-
ond relative spin structure is obtained from adding TM to the background bundle (which
changes the background class by w
2
(TM)) and using the canonical spin structure on
TM[L
j
, j = 0, . . . , d.
Given a sequence L of oriented Lagrangian submanifolds in M, we denote by
(41) (L) = ((L
0
), . . . , (L
d
))
the same sequence with shifted relative spin structures.
5.2. Construction of orientations. Let S be a surface possibly with boundary and strip-
like ends, and M(x) the moduli space of pseudoholomorphic maps u : S M with boundary
in L and limits x = (x
e
, e c(S)), introduced in Theorem 4.2.3 of [14].
Proposition 5.2.1. A choice of relative spin structure for L, if it exists, and orientations
for the ends induces an orientation on /(x). The orientations are unchanged by the shift
of (41).
Proof. The tangent space to /(x) is the kernel of the linearized operator D
u
, which is a
Cauchy-Riemann operator with boundary conditions (u)
j
TL
j
. The relative spin structure
on L induces by Proposition 4.1.4 an orientation on /(x). The relative spin structures
shifted by induce the same stable spin structure, since (u[S
j
)
TM is canonically trivial,
and hence the same orientations.
5.3. Behavior of orientations under disjoint union. Suppose that S = S
1
S
2
, and S
j
has d
j
incoming resp. outgoing ends for j = 1, 2. A pair u = (u
1
, u
2
) of pseudoholomorphic
maps of index zero is oriented by
(u) = (u
1
)(u
2
)(1)
rank(F)(#
0
(S
2
)+d
+
j
)(
P
eE
,1
(dim(M)/2+Ind(De)))
= (u
1
)(u
2
)(1)
|
S
2
|
P
eE
,1
|xe|
see Figure 3 and Remark 4.1.7 in [14]. This implies that the relative invariant
S
is the
graded tensor product
S
(
eE
(S)
x
e
)) = (1)
|
S
2
|
P
eE
,1
|xe|
S
1
(
eE
(S
1
)
x
e
))
S
2
(
eE
(S
2
)
x
e
))
= (
S
1

S
2
)(
eE
(S
1
)E
(S
2
)
x
e
))
5.4. Behavior of orientations under gluing. We now determine the signs induced by
smoothing of nodes or gluing strip-like ends. It follows a fortiori from the gluing con-
structions that as the length of the neck in the gluing construction goes to innity, the
linearization of the gluing map approaches the linear gluing map in e.g. (15). The signs for
gluing in the interior, gluing at the boundary, and gluing strip-like ends are those given in
Section 2.2. To prove Theorem 4.1.5 (d) of [14], we also must consider the orientation on
the moduli space /(x
+
, x
) of Floer trajectories, induced from the isomorphism

T
u
/(x
+
, x
) R T
u

/(x
+
, x
)
where second factor is the tangent space to the translational R-action and the codomain is
the tangent space to the moduli space of parametrized trajectories. The gluing map
/(x
e
, y)
0
/
S
(x
[
x
e
y
, x
+
)
0
[0, ) /
S
(x
, x
+
)
1
factors through the product
/(x
, e, y)
1
/
S
(x
[
x
e
y
, x
+
)
0
preserving the orientation on the R orbits. Taking the conventions of Section 5.6 shows that
the sign of the gluing map is positive. A similar description for the outgoing Floer trajecto-
ries shows that the sign is negative. This proves that for Lagrangians L
0
, L
1
equipped with
relative spin structure and satisfying (L1-3), the Floer homology with integer coecients
HF(L
0
, L
1
) is well-dened and isomorphic to that dened using shifted spin structures:
HF(L
0
, L
1
)

= HF((L
0
), (L
1
)).
Similarly, in this setting the relative invariants are dened over the integers. The shift
leaves the composition and identities unchanged and so denes an equivalence of categories
(42) : Don(M, , b) Don(M, , b +w
2
(M))
for any background class b H
2
(M, Z
2
).
5.5. Gluing signs for disks. In order to prove that the signs in the associativity and
identity axioms for the Donaldson-Fukaya category in Section 6 of [14] are as claimed, it
suces to consider the case that S is the union of a pair of surfaces S
1
, S
2
with n
1
resp. n
2
incoming and one outgoing strip-like ends, with S
1
, S
2
isomorphic to disks with a number
of boundary points removed. Let

S be the surface with strip-like ends obtained by gluing
two strip-like ends numbered i
1
, i
2
together, one from each component. Suppose that the
numbering of the ends is cyclic, starting from the outgoing end, and that furthermore the
sum of indices Ind(D
e
) for the strip-like ends on each component is zero:
(43)
n
1
k=1
Ind(D
k
) =
n
1
+n
2
j=n
1
+1
Ind(D
j
) = 0.
Permuting the strip-like ends to be adjacent results in a sign from Theorem 4.2.1 of
(44) (1)
Ind(D
i
1
)
P
i
2
1
k=i
1
+1
Ind(D
k
)
.
On the other hand, cyclic re-ordering the ends of

S produces a sign
(45) (1)
P
n
1
+n
2
k=n
1
+2
P
n
1
j=i
1
+1
Ind(D
k
) Ind(D
j
)
.
(43) implies that the two contributions (44), (45) cancel.
5.6. Special cases. Finally we check that the signs for the annulus and strips in Example
4.1.7 of [14] are as claimed. Since the only pseudoholomorphic strips in this case are the
constants, this is an entirely linear question.
Annulus: For the surface A = [0, 1] S
1
with two transverse, constant boundary condi-
tions F = (F
0
, F
1
), the orientation on the determinant line det(D
E,F
) in induced from the
isomorphism with the sphere with two bubbled-o disks,
det(D
E,F
)
max
((E
2
)
)
max
(F
0
E F
1
),
see Figure 5. D
E,F
has trivial kernel and cokernel, and so det(D
E,F
) = R. The induced
orientation on the determinant line det(D
E,F
) = R is the standard one if and only if
the isomorphism F
0
F
1
E is orientation preserving. This shows that given a pair
L
0
, L
1
of transversally intersecting Lagrangians, the contribution to the invariant
A
from
x 1(L
0
, L
1
) is (1)
|x|
, see Assumption (G1) of [14].
Strip: Let S denote the strip [0, 1] R. Let e
0
denote the incoming end, and e
1
the
outgoing end of S. Let F
j
, j = 0, 1 denote constant, transverse boundary conditions.
Choose a path from F
0
to F
1
, and compatible orientations on the resulting operators
on the once-punctured disks D
e
j , j = 0, 1. Compatibility means that the gluing map for
strip-like ends
det(D
e
0) det(D
e
1) det(D
disk
)
to operator D
disk
with homotopically trivial boundary conditions is orientation preserving.
The orientation on det(D) is dened so that the gluing isomorphism
(46) det(D
e
0)
max
((0)
) det(D
disk
)
max
((0)
) det(D
e
1) det(D
E,F
)
is orientation preserving. Permuting the factor det(D
e
1) to the beginning produces a factor
of
(1)
Ind(D
e
1
)(rank(F)+Ind(D
e
0
))
= (1)
Ind(D
e
1
)
.
Using compatibility of orientations and gluing to the annulus gives an orientation preserving
isomorphism
(47) det(D
e
1) det(D
e
0)
max
((0)
) det(D
disk
)
max
((0)
)
det(D
disk
)
max
((0)
) det(D
disk
)
max
((0)
)
which by gluing is isomorphic to the determinant line for the Cauchy-Riemann operator on
the annulus. By the previous item, this has orientation (1)
Ind(D
e
1
)
, which gives a total
sign of +1 as claimed.
Cup and Cap: Suppose that S
, S
are the disks with two outgoing resp. incoming ends

of Example 4.1.7 of [14], equipped with constant vector bundles E
, E
and constant real

boundary conditions (F
0
, F
1
) = (F
1
, F
0
). For the two ends of S
we can choose the paths
on the two ends e

0
, e
1
to be related by time-reversal, and then the orientations on

D
e
0
, D
e
1
so that the gluing map

(48) det(D
disk
)
max
(
(0)
)
2
det(D
e
1
) det(D
e
0
) det(D
)
induces the standard orientation on det(D
) = R. Note that we have isomorphisms

det(D
e
1
)

= det(D
e
0
), det(D
e
0
)

= det(D
e
1
).
The compatibility condition for D
e
0
, D
e
0
diers from that for D

e
1
, D
e
1
by a sign
(1)
Ind(D
e
1
) Ind(D
e
0
)
= (1)
(rank(F)Ind(D
e
0
)) Ind(D
e
0
)
given by the transposition of factors. The order of factors in (48) is related to that in (46) by
sign (1)
Ind(D
e
0
)
2
. The choice of sign orientation for det(D
e
1
) which makes the orientations

positive is this sign times the induced orientation from det(D
e
0
). The orientation on D
is
dened by the gluing isomorphism
(49) det(D
e
0
)
max
(
(0)
) det(D
e
1
)
max
(
(0)
) det(D
disk
) det(D
).
The order of factors diers from that in (47) by a sign
(1)
Ind(D
e
0
)
2
+Ind(D
e
1
) rank(F)
which means the orientation on det(D
) = R is
(1)
rank(F) Ind(D
e
0
)+2 Ind(D
e
0
)
2
+(rank(F)Ind(D
e
0
)) Ind(D
e
0
)
= (1)
Ind(D
e
0
)
as in Example 4.1.7 of [14]. .
5.7. Independence from choices of orientations. In this section we check that the
Floer homology groups and relative invariants are independent, up to isomorphism, of the
choices made in the construction of the orientations. Let (
e
, D
e
,
e
,
e
), (
e
, D
e
,
e
,
e
) be
two orientations for the end e c(S). Dene maps
: CF(L
e1
, L
e
) CF(L
e1
, L
e
), x) (x)x)
as follows. Let (E
e
, F
e
) denote the corresponding elliptic boundary value problems on the
once-punctured disk S
1
. Let E
e
, F
e
, D
e
denote the bundles and Cauchy-Riemann operator
obtained by gluing together the problems E
e
, F
e
, D
e
and E
e
, F
e
, D
e
along the strip-like ends.
By the gluing formula there exists an isomorphism
det(D
e
) det(D
e
) det(D
e
).
We dene (x) = 1 depending on whether the orientation induced by
e
,
e
and the gluing
isomorphism agrees with the orientation induced by the trivialization of F
e
. The gluing law
for indices implies that the map intertwines the relative invariants for S associated to the
two dierent choices of orientation. A similar discussion holds for orientations dened using
innite strips. Alternatively, the Floer homology groups can be dened without choosing
orientations on the caps by
CF(L
0
, L
1
) =
Z
Z
2
or(x)x).
where or is the set of orientations on the caps.
5.8. Orientations for pseudoholomorphic sections of Lefschetz brations. If S is
a surface with boundary and strip-like ends, a symplectic Lefschetz bration is a space E
equipped with a closed two-form
E
and almost complex structure near the singularities of
and a projection E S with singularities of Morse-Bott type that is locally holomorphic
near the singularities of . Given a Lagrangian boundary condition Q E and asymp-
totic values x
0
, . . . , x
d
along the ends let /(E, Q; x
0
, . . . , x
d
) denote the moduli space of
pseudoholomorphic sections u : S E with boundary values in Q and limits x
0
, . . . , x
d
.
The tangent space is canonically the index of an operator
D
E,Q
:
0
(S, S; u
T
vert
E, u
T
vert
Q)
0,1
(S, E).
Any relative pin structure on Q induces on an orientation on /
u
(E, Q; x
0
, . . . , x
d
), as in
the case with surfaces. The gluing signs are the same as for pseudoholomorphic surfaces.
It follows that in the case Q is oriented and has minimal Maslov number at least two that
(E, Q) denes a relative invariant mapping the tensor product of Floer homologies for the
incoming ends to the product for the outgoing ends More generally, if Q is not oriented and
equipped with a relative pin structure, and has minimal Maslov number at least two, and
the Lagrangian pairs at all ends have relative pin structure and minimal Maslov number at
least two, then the pair (E, Q) denes a morphism in the category of matrix factorizations
from the product of matrix factorizations for the incoming ends to that for the outgoing
ends.
5.9. Orientations for quilted pseudoholomorphic surfaces. Let L a collection of La-
grangian conditions corresponding to a collection M of compact monotone symplectic man-
ifolds attached to the components of S. A relative spin structure for L is a relative spin
structure for the embedding
_
L
(k,e)
_
L
(k,e),(k
,e
M
k
where we extend the embeddings by requiring that they be constant on the other components
of the codomain. Any relative spin structure for L gives rise to a background class b
j

H
2
(M
j
, Z
2
) for each factor M
j
. such that for each Lagrangian : L
(k
1
,d
1
),(k
2
,d
2
)
M
k
1
M
k
2
, the pull-back
k
1
b
k
1
+
k
2
b
k
2
) +w
2
(TL
(k
1
,d
1
),(k
2
,d
2
)
) is trivial.
Let x be a collection of perturbed intersection points at innity, and /(x) the moduli
space of perturbed pseudoholomorphic maps S M with boundary values in L and limits
x. A choice of relative spin structure for L, if it exists, together with orientations on the
ends, induces an orientation on /(x), by the constructions in Section 4.4.3. The various
gluing isomorphisms induce the same sign on orientations given by the gluing map on indices
on the closed surfaces with trivial boundary conditions. For Floer trajectories, there is an
additional sign coming from the comparison of the translational symmetry with the gluing
parameter, as in Theorem 4.1.5 (d) of [14]. This implies that the Floer homology groups
and relative invariants are well-dened; the same argument as in the unquilted case shows
that they are independent up to isomorphism of the choices made. By the computations in
Section 5.6, the identity and associativity axioms for composition in the category Don
#
(M)
holds with integer coecients.
Given a generalized Lagrangian L equipped with a relative spin structure with back-
ground classes b = (b
r
, . . . , b
0
= b) one obtains a new relative spin structure with back-
ground classes b + w
2
(M) = (b
r
+ w
2
(TM
r
), . . . , b
0
+ w
2
(TM
0
)) by adding TM to the
background bundle on each component. As in (42) this denes a functor
(50) : Don
#
(M, b) Don
#
(M, b +w
2
(TM)).
6. Orientations for diagonal insertions
In this section, we discuss the eect of adding a new seam to a quilted surface S with
the diagonal seam condition. There is an obvious bijection between pseudoholomorphic
maps from the quilted surface S and the new surface S
. This leads to a description of the

functor associated to the diagonal as a shift of relative spin structures. We were surprised
to discover that this functor is not exactly the identity, and in fact cannot be since it maps
the Donaldson-Fukaya category Don
#
(M, b) to a dierent category Don
#
(M, b + w
2
(M)).
To restore the diagonal as identity property one must identify these two categories.
6.1. Inserting a diagonal for Cauchy-Riemann operators. Let S be a quilted surface,
and suppose that S
is a quilted surface obtained from S by inserting an additional seam

, see Figure 8. Suppose that S
j
is the component of S containing the new seam. Thus in
S
the components S
j
is replaced by components S
j
, S
j
. Obviously the orientations for the
Cauchy-Riemann operator on the new surface will depend on conventions for ordering the
new components and boundary components. We take as our convention that the ordering
of the components of S
is such that S
j
follows S
j
immediately (or vice-versa), and the
new boundary component of S
j
(resp. S
j
) is last (resp. rst) in the ordering of boundary
components. Let (E, F) be an collection of bundles with totally real seam and boundary
Figure 8. Inserting a diagonal

conditions F. Consider the collection E
, F
obtained from E, F by replacing E

j
with two
copies, and assigning to the new seam the diagonal sub-bundle of E
j
E
j
. Suppose that
F is equipped with a relative spin structure.
Proposition 6.1.1. If the new seam is separating, that is, divides S
into quilted surfaces

S
and S is connected, then the collection F
has a two canonical relative spin structures,

depending on a choice of component of the complement of .
Proof. The diagonal
j
is isomorphic to E
j
, via projection on the second factor. Hence
E
j

j
has a canonical stable spin structure, as in (32). Furthermore, since the seam
conditions are totally real, the restriction of any pair E
b,k
E
b,k
to the seam admits an

isomorphism
E
b,k
E
b,k
F
b,(k,e),(k
,e
)
iF
b,(k,e),(k
,e
)
and so admits a canonical stable spin structure by (32) again. It follows that F
has a
relative spin structure, whose background bundles dier from those of F by adding E
j
to
all the background vector bundles for components on one side of the new seam .
If is not separating, then the same construction works after adding two new seams,
separating S into two components.
Let D be a Cauchy-Riemann operator for (E, F), and D
the corresponding operator

for (E
, F
). We have a canonical identication of kernels ker(D) ker(D
) and, using
Serre duality, the cokernels. Hence we have an isomorphism of determinant lines det(D)
det(D
).
Proposition 6.1.2. Suppose that the new seam is separating and dieomorphic to a
circle, that is, does not meet any strip-like ends. Then the isomorphism det(D) det(D
)
Proof. First, suppose that S has a single component S isomorphic to the two-sphere with
standard complex structure, E S is trivial, and D is the standard Cauchy-Riemann
operator. The orientation for D
is dened by deforming to a condition of split form. Let

F
t
denote the family of seam conditions in the deformation. If we choose F
t
to be constant,
then the corresponding family D
t
of Cauchy-Riemann operators is surjective, with kernel
isomorphic to any ber of F
t
by evaluation at a point. Hence the orientation on D
0
is
induced by evaluation at a point on the seam, and the orientation on the bers of .
On the other hand, the orientation on det(D) is induced by the complex structure on E.
The proposition follows from the fact that projection of on either factor is orientation
preserving.
For the general case, suppose that S
j
is the component of S containing . Choose a
trivialization of E
j
in a neighborhood of . Let
be small translates of the seam to either

side. Contracting the lines
to nodes one obtains a nodal surface S

deg
consisting of quilted
surfaces S
,deg
, S
0,deg
, S
+,deg
, with S
0,deg
a sphere. Applying the same construction to S
yields a surface S
deg
, consisting of quilted surfaces S
,deg
, S
0,deg
, S
+,deg
, with S
0,deg
a quilted
sphere, see Figure 9. By gluing for quilted surfaces, the isomorphism of determinant lines
S
S
,deg
S
0,deg
S
+,deg
Figure 9. Pinching o a seam
induced by gluing det(D) det(D
deg
), det(D
) det(D
deg
) are orientation preserving. By
the previous paragraph, the gluing isomorphism det(D
0,deg
) det(D
0,deg
) is orientation
preserving. Since the isomorphisms of determinant lines induced by gluing commute with
those induced by deformation, this proves the Proposition.
We extend the Proposition to the case that meets the strip-like ends. Suppose we have
chosen orientations for S as in Denition 4.1.2. We will modify the denition in 4.1.2 so
that it is better adapted to the folding involved in inserting the diagonal.
We dene a strip orientation as follows. In the unquilted case, for each end e we choose a
pair of paths
,
+
with
() = F
e,
and
+
() =
+
(). The pair denes boundary
conditions on the innite strip, with one non-degenerate ends and one degenerate end.
After introducing a small Sobolev weight on the degenerate end that allows asymptotically
constant solutions, any Cauchy Riemann operator D
e
interpolating between the asymptotic
limit H
e
at and the standard operator at innity is Fredholm. We say that the data
, D
e
, and an orientation on det(D
e
) constitutes a strip orientation for e. For the quilted
case, a strip orientation consists of a choice of deformation to split form for each end,
together with a collection of strip orientations for the various components.
The analog of Proposition 4.1.4 holds, with strip orientations on the ends instead of the
orientations dened before. We sketch the construction. Instead of pinching o disks
with trivial boundary conditions for each boundary component, we now pinch o disks with
a nite number of points on the boundary removed and constant boundary condition. The
index of the standard Cauchy-Riemann operator can be computed as follows. The kernel
consists of constant functions, and so is isomorphic to a ber of the boundary condition
via restriction to the ber. The adjoint operator has constant boundary conditions, but
acts on functions with small negative Sobolev weight and so is injective. Hence the original
operator is surjective, and the determinant line is isomorphic to the determinant line of the
ber of the boundary condition. Hence the orientation on the boundary conditions induces
orientations on the pinched-o punctured disks, and the same construction as before gives
orientations on the closed surfaces.
Suppose that S
is obtained from S by inserting a new seam connecting two ends, as in

Figure 8. Given strip orientations for the ends of S, dene induced orientations for the ends
of S
as follows. First, deform the asymptotic operators of S to split form. If in addition

we choose a deformation of the diagonal to split form, maintaining transversality, then we
obtain orientations for S
from the orientations for S and the extension of the determinant

line over the deformation. We say that the orientations on det(D
e
) are induced from those
on D
e
if the orientations for det(D
5
e
) have been chosen for both ends meeting the diagonal,

and in addition the deformation of the diagonal to split form is the same, up to homotopy
and identication of bers, at both of these ends.
Similarly, the ordering of the components of S induces an ordering of the components
of S
, by replacing the index of the old components with those of the new component and
ordering the component S
j,
before S
j,+
. An ordering of the ends of the components of S
induce orderings of the ends of S
. Finally, the ordering of boundary components induces an

ordering of the boundary components for each component of S
: For each old component,

the ordering is the same, while for the new components S
j,
one puts the new seam last
(resp. rst) for S
j,
resp. S
j,+
, and the other components ordered as before.
Proposition 6.1.3. Suppose that the new seam is separating and dieomorphic to R, or
the bundle E
j
over the components S
j
containing the new seam is spin. If the orientations
for the ends of S
as well as the orderings of the components and boundary components are

induced from those of S, then the isomorphism of determinant lines det(D) det(D
) is
orientation preserving.
Proof. The proof is by a reduction to the case that the new seam is a circle in Proposition
6.1.2. First, suppose that S = (S) is an unquilted surface with strip-like ends. Let D
denote the Cauchy-Riemann operator obtained by adding the strip orientations, so that the
asymptotic boundary conditions are equal. By gluing together the ends e
, we obtain a
surface S
#
with two fewer strip-like ends and a Cauchy-Riemann operator D
#
, see Figure
10. missing g
e
+ e
+
e
S
S
#
S
,#
Figure 10. Inserting a diagonal and gluing the ends together
Suppose that the ordering of the boundary components of the glued surface is such that
the rst boundary component of the new surface corresponds to the boundary of S between
e
and e
+
, so that the gluing isomorphism det(D) det(D
#
) is orientation preserving
by Section 4.4.3. Similarly, let D
(resp. D
) denote the Cauchy-Riemann operator on S
obtained by adding the split deformations and deformations to equal boundary conditions
(resp. except for the split deformation of the diagonal to split form.) and D
,#
(resp.
D
,#
) the operator obtained by gluing together the ends e
using the identication of

bers described above. By assumption on the ordering of the boundary components, the
gluing isomorphism det(D
) det(D
,#
) is orientation preserving. Furthermore D
,#
is
canonically homotopic to D
,#
and the homotopy induces an isomorphism of determinant
lines det(D
,#
) det(D
,#
). Consider the diagram
det(D) det(D)
det(D
) det(D
)
det(D)
det(D
#
) det(D
,#
) det(D
,#
)
-
1
-
2
?
-
3
? ?
-
4
-
#
2
-
#
3
where
1
represents gluing in the determinant lines for the ends, with their chosen orienta-
tions, the
2
,
#
2
are folding isomorphisms,
3
is induced from gluing in the operators D
5
e
,
the vertical maps are gluing isomorphisms,
#
3
is induced by the homotopy of D
5
e
+
#D
5
e
to the trivial operator with trivial boundary conditions, and

4
is induced by the choices
of strip orientations. By Proposition 6.1.2,
#
2
#
3
is orientation
preserving since it is induced by a homotopy. The diagram commutes, because the folding
isomorphisms and deformation commute with gluing. Hence the isomorphism
2
3
is ori-
entation preserving.
1
,
4
are orientation preserving by denition, hence the composition
1

2

3

4
The case that S is quilted is similar. Strictly speaking it uses Proposition 6.1.2 for the
case that S is partially quilted, but this follows from the same argument as the fully quilted
case.
6.2. Inserting a diagonal for pseudoholomorphic quilts. Suppose that S
is obtained
from S by inserting a new seam , as above, M, M
, L, L
are as in the previous subsection.

The main result of this section is
Proposition 6.2.1. Suppose that the new seam is inserted into the component S
j
, and
the corresponding symplectic manifold M
j
is spin, or that that the new seam is separating.
Then there exists a collection of isomorphisms
(51) HF(L
e
) HF(L
e
)
such that their tensor products intertwine with the relative invariants dened by S, S
. In
particular, given Lagrangian correspondences L
01
, L
12
, we have an isomorphism of Floer
homologies with integer coecients
HF(L
02
, L
01
, L
12
) HF(L
02
, L
01
,
1
, L
12
).
Proof. We take the perturbation data for L
to be induced by perturbation data for L, that

is, a smooth periodic Hamiltonian H, so that both 1(L) and 1(L
) are in bijection with

periodic orbits of the Hamiltonian vector eld of H with period 1. The Proposition follows
from the linear case in the previous section, taking the map on chain complexes to be the
identity on chain complexes.
Remark 6.2.2. In the case that M
j
is spin, the isomorphism of Floer homology groups
can be dened as follows from the isomorphisms HF(
j
) QH(M
j
). For each strip-
like end e let
e
: HF(L
e
) HF(L
e
) denote the morphism associated to the quilted
surface show in Figure 11. In other words, to the innite strip we add a cylindrical end
1M
j
M
j
Figure 11. Isomorphism from HF(L
e
) to HF(L
e
)
in the component separated by the seam , and insert at that cylindrical end the identity
in 1
M
j
HF(
M
j
) constructed above. The same surface, reected, denes a morphism
e
: HF(L
e
) HF(L
e
). The identities
e
= 1
HF(L
e
)
,
e
e
= 1
HF(L
e
)
follow from the results of the previous section applied to the surface on the inner circle in
Figure 12. Compatibility with the relative invariants is proved in the same way.
Corollary 6.2.3. The functor () : Don
#
(M, b) Don
#
(M, b + w
2
(M)) associated to
the diagonal M
M is isomorphic to the toggle functor of (41).

1
M
j
1
M
j
M
j 1
M
j
1
M
j
Figure 12. Removing a seam
Proof. A natural transformation from () to consists of a morphism from ()(L)
to (L) for each object L of Don
#
(M). We assume for simplicity that L has length one.
Then HF(()(L), (L)) = HF(L, , (L)) which is isomorphic to HF(L, L) by the
Proposition 6.2.1. Let
L
be the pre-image of the identity 1
L
. Similarly, let
L
be the pre-
image of the identity under the isomorphisms HF((L), ()(L)) HF((L), , L)
HF(L, L). The identities = 1
()L
, = 1
(L)
follow from Proposition 6.2.1 applied
to the relative invariants associated to a pair of pants with one resp. two diagonals
inserted.
7. Orientations for compositions of Lagrangian correspondences
In this section we discuss the eect of composition of the seam conditions on the Floer
homology groups and relative invariants. The eect of adding an additional seam labelled
with the diagonal Lagrangian was discussed in the previous section, so it remains to study
the eect of replacing F
ij
,
j
, F
jk
with F
ij
F
jk
in a sequence of seam conditions.
7.1. Orientations for compositions of totally real boundary conditions. Let S be
a quilted surface with two adjacent surfaces labelled S
i
, S
k
, equipped with complex vector
bundles E and boundary and seam conditions F, such that the totally real sub-bundle F
ik
is a smooth composition of totally real subbundles F
ij
E
i
E
j
, F
jk
E
j
E
k
and E
j
is
a complex vector bundle over the seam joining S
i
, S
k
. That is,
F
ik
=
ik
(F
ij

j
F
jk
).
relative spin structures for F
ij
, F
jk
, and the diagonal induce a relative spin structure for F
ik
using the isomorphism
ik
F
ik

j
F
ij
F
jk
.
Let S
denote the cylinder with two additional components S
i
isomorphic to an innite
strip or annulus, depending on whether the seam joining S
j
and S
k
is a strip. Let E
be
the collection of complex vector bundles, equal to E on all but the new components where
given by E
i
(pulled back by projection onto the seam), and F
the collection of boundary

and seam conditions obtained by replacing F
ik
with F
ij
,
j
, F
jk
. Given an orientation for
each end e
for the ends of S
, dene orientations for the ends e
of S by deforming to split
form, using the following
Lemma 7.1.1. There is a canonical deformation of the boundary condition F
ij
F
jk
to
1423
(F
ik
1
) within the space of totally real sub-bundles, where
1423
is the isomorphism
E
i
E
j
E
j
E
k
E
i
E
k
E
j
E
j
given by permutation of factors.
Proof. Any complex vector bundle admits a Hermitian, hence a symplectic structure. The
ber bundle of totally real subspaces of maximal dimension is canonically isomorphic to the
Lagrangian Grassmannian, since GL(n, C)/GL(n, R)

= U(n)/O(n)

= Sp(2n, R)/GL(n, R).
Hence the claim follows from the symplectic case, considered in [14].
Given a orientation at the end e
, we obtain a orientation for e
by rst deforming the

condition F
ij
F
jk
to F
ik

j
, and using the given deformation of F
ik
to split form, and
using compatible deformations of
j
,
j
to split form in the sense that every space in the
family is transversal. We say that the orientations for S
are induced from those for S.

Lemma 7.1.2. Suppose that the orientations for S are induced from a choice of orientations
for S
, the ordering of components, ends, and boundary components of S is induced from

those of S
, the components S
j
, S
j
are adjacent in the ordering. Then the isomorphism of
determinant lines det(D) det(D
) induced by
Proof. By denition the orientations are those induced by the deformation of the conditions
F
ij
, F
jk
to F
ik

j
. Note that these orientations are not of the type previously dened
for quilted surfaces, because the deformation of F
ij
F
jk
to split form is not of split type,
that is, passes through pairs that are not subspaces of E
i
E
j
and E
j
E
k
. In order to
show that this orientation is of the type previously discussed, one can apply Lemma ?? to
each element in the deformation, to obtain a deformation of F
ij
F
jk
of the desired form.
Invariance of orientations under homotopy implies that the two orientations agree. obscure? *
The problem on S
j
, S
j
with boundary conditions
j
,
j
has trivial index and orientation
by denition (recall S
j
, S
j
are strips or annuli) so the orientation on det(D) is that induced
by det(D
).
7.2. Orientations for compositions of Lagrangian correspondences. Let S denote
a quilted surface, M a set of symplectic manifolds for the components of S, and L a
collection of Lagrangian and seam conditions. Suppose that S contains a pair of adjacent
components M
j
, M
j
dieomorphic to innite strips, with boundary conditions L
ij
,
j
, L
jk
.
Let S
denote the surface obtained by removing the M

j
components, and replacing the
sequence L
ij
,
j
, L
jk
with the composition L
ik
= L
ij
L
jk
, assuming it is smooth and
embedded by the projection onto M
i
M
k
. Relative spin structures for L
ij
, L
jk
and
j
in a neighborhood of
j
induce a relative spin structure for L
ik
relative to the embedding
(
i
j,+
j,
k
) : L
ik
M
i
M
+
j
M
j
M
+
k
in a neighborhood of M
i
j
M
k
.
Indeed, consider the isomorphism
T(L
ij
L
jk
)[L
ij

M
j
L
jk

ik
TL
ik
(TM
2
j
/T
j
)[L
ik
.
w
2
(TM
2
j
[
j
) has an obvious relative trivialization, given by w
2
(TM
2
j
). Hence any relative
trivialization of w
2
(TL
ij
TL
jk
) induces a relative trivialization of w
2
(TL
ik
).
Proposition 7.2.1. There exists a collection of isomorphisms HF(L
e
) HF(L
e
) such
that the tensor products over the negative and positive ends of S, S
intertwine the relative

invariants for S, S
. In particular, given Lagrangian correspondences L

01
, L
12
, L
02
we have
an isomorphism
HF(L
02
, L
01
,
1
, L
12
) HF(L
02
, L
02
).
Proof. For Z
2
coecients this was proved in Theorem 5.4.1 of [14]. Up to a small correction,
the bijection constructed in Section 4 of [14] linearizes to the projection onto the components
except the bundles E
j
over S
j
, S
j
, that is, maps a section ker(D) to its projection
.
By Lemma 7.1.2 and the identication of the tangent spaces of the various moduli spaces
with kernels of Cauchy-Riemann operators with totally real boundary and seam conditions,
the isomorphism constructed in [14] is orientation preserving, hence the proposition.
By Theorems 6.2.1 and 7.2.1, in the case that M
1
is spin we have isomorphisms
HF(L
02
, L
01
, L
12
) HF(L
02
, L
01
,
1
, L
12
) HF(L
02
, L
02
)
compatible with the relative invariants. More generally, we have simply an isomorphism
HF(L
02
, L
01
,
1
, L
12
) HF(L
02
, L
02
)
compatible with the relative invariants, which leads to an isomorphism of functors
(L
02
) (L
01
) (
1
) (L
12
).
By Corollary 6.2.3, the latter is isomorphic to (L
01
) (L
12
). This completes the proof
of Theorem 5.4.1 of [14].
References
[1] Jean-Luc Brylinski. Loop spaces, characteristic classes and geometric quantization, volume 107 of
Progress in Mathematics. Birkhauser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1993.
[2] Tobias Ekholm, John Etnyre, and Michael Sullivan. Orientations in Legendrian contact homology and
exact Lagrangian immersions. Internat. J. Math., 16(5):453532, 2005.
[3] K. Fukaya, Y.-G. Oh, H. Ohta, and K. Ono. Lagrangian intersection Floer theory-anomaly and obstruc-
tion. in preparation, preliminary version available at http://www.kusm.kyoto-u.ac.jp/fukaya/fooo.dvi.
[4] R. Hartshorne. Algebraic Geometry, volume 52 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1977.
[5] Robert B. Lockhart and Robert C. McOwen. Elliptic dierential operators on noncompact manifolds.
Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4), 12(3):409447, 1985.
[6] S. Mau, K. Wehrheim, and C.T. Woodward. A-functors for Lagrangian correspondences. work in
progress.
[7] Dusa McDu and Dietmar Salamon. J-holomorphic curves and symplectic topology, volume 52 of Amer-
ican Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI,
2004.
[8] Tim Perutz. Lagrangian matching invariants for bred four-maniolds: II. arXiv:math.SG/0606062.
[9] P. Seidel. Fukaya categories and Lefschetz brations. Book in preparation available at
http://www.math.chicago.edu/ seidel/draft.pdf.
[10] P. Seidel. A long exact sequence for symplectic Floer cohomology. Topology, 42(5):10031063, 2003.
[11] J.-P. Serre. Cohomologie galoisienne. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, fth edition, 1994.
[12] Zohreh Shahbazi. Dierential Geometry of Relative Gerbes. arXiv:math.DG/0505237.
[13] Jake P. Solomon. Intersection theory on the moduli space of holomorphic curves with Lagrangian
boundary conditions. arXiv:math.SG/0606429.
[14] Katrin Wehrheim and Chris T. Woodward. Functoriality for Lagrangian correspondences in Floer the-
ory. in preparation.
[15] K. Wehrheim and C.T. Woodward. Exact triangle for bered Dehn twists. in preparation.

Katrin Wehrheim and Chris T. Woodward - Orientations For Pseudoholomorphic Quilts

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Katrin Wehrheim and Chris T. Woodward - Orientations For Pseudoholomorphic Quilts

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ORIENTATIONS FOR PSEUDOHOLOMORPHIC QUILTS

category associated to a monotone symplectic manifold to

then the isomorphism

the orientation dened by

by an inner product, then the orientation

whose evaluations on F T(S) vanish. The index identities

) 2(S) I(E, F). (7)

[0, 1] respectively, and d

[0, 1]. That is, the dierence

as in Denition 4.1.1 of [14]; in

, the boundary components

is the normalization (resolution of singularities) of S.

[0, 1]) for each strip-like end e c(S

is maximally totally real, that is rank

, and they form a transverse

dened in terms of a real Cauchy-Riemann operator D

) as the kernel of the surjective map

, together with smoothly varying

that is constant in the trivializations on the strip-like ends. A family

(S) be an outgoing resp. incoming

are equal, after

[0, 1]) S is replaced by a strip [, ] [0, 1] depending

(0 [0, 1]). (This

be the (possibly still nodal) surface with strip-like ends obtained

using the map

depends on the value of

, which are xed in the notion of nodes of S. (In addition,

denote the vector bundles over

. Using cuto functions, one constructs from D

, supported on [6/7, 6/7], equal

, that is, the space of functions f such that

) the standard Sobolev (1, 2)-space. The Cauchy-Riemann operator D

) denote a slowly varying cut-o function, with

, equal to 0 on (3/7, 3/7) [0, 1]

) the section obtained by multiplying by the cuto function

and using the identication of

and E away from the neck. For suciently large,

is an isomorphism, since the domain is nite-dimensional. Let V

. We claim that for (1, 0), the restriction of

is uniformly right invertible, that is, there exist constants C and

Ez 0, see [4]. If coker(DE

the surface with strip-like ends obtained by removing the node

be the neck and bundles restricted to the neck.

) with the kernel of D

) for any (1, 0).

is comparable to the same section

which appears in the second term of (17).

be a slowly varying function on supported on (2/7, 2/7) [0, 1] and equal to

, and E, the second inequality combines the elliptic estimates for (E

denote the projection. We claim that

is an isomorphism with uniformly

with any sequence of elements

| 0 which contradicts (21).

; the cases of interior nodes, strip-like

the diagram commutes up to a small error term which

. Conversely dene a functor

(r) correspond to the Stiefel-Whitney classes w

(a, b) = (z, 0); note that by denition

to that of Q. There is a one-to-one correspondence

R any lift of the form (a, f

E(BZ)] [N, B(G/Z)] [N, B