Symplectic Manifolds and Isomonodromic Deformations

Philip Boalch

doi:10.1006/aima.2001.1998

Boalch, Philip

2020-01-31 00:00:00

SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS PHILIP BOALCH f f M (a) M(a) νe f f M M e e X X Isomonodromic Deformations (Figure 1, p.49) arXiv:2002.00052v1 [math.DG] 31 Jan 2020 2 PHILIP BOALCH Abstract. We study moduli spaces of meromorphic connections (with arbitrary order poles) over Riemann surfaces together with the corresponding spaces of mon- odromy data (involving Stokes matrices). Natural symplectic structures are found and described both explicitly and from an inﬁnite dimensional viewpoint (gener- alising the Atiyah-Bott approach). This enables us to give an intrinsic symplectic description of the isomonodromic deformation equations of Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno, thereby putting the existing results for the six Painlev´e equations and Schlesinger’s equations into a uniform framework. CONTENTS 1. Introduction 3 2. Meromorphic Connections on Trivial Bundles 8 3. Generalised Monodromy 14 4. C Approach to Meromorphic Connections 27 5. Symplectic Structure and Moment Map 35 6. The Monodromy Map is Symplectic 40 7. Isomonodromic Deformations and Symplectic Fibrations 46 Appendix 55 Acknowledgments and References 58 f e M(a) −→ A (a)/G ﬂ 1 νe e e ∼ f f O × · · · × O //G = M (a) −→ M (a) 1 m 0 Main commutative diagram (p.40) SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 3 1. Introduction Moduli spaces of representations of fundamental groups of Riemann surfaces have been intensively studied in recent years and have an incredibly rich structure: For example, a theorem of Narasimhan and Seshadri [56] identiﬁes the space of irreducible unitary representations of the fundamental group of a compact Riemann surface with the moduli space of stable holomorphic vector bundles on the surface. In partic- ular, this description puts a Ka¨hler structure on the space of fundamental group representations—it has a symplectic structure together with a compatible complex structure. A remarkable fact is that although the complex structure on the space of representations will depend on the complex structure of the surface, the symplectic structure only depends on the topology, a fact often referred to as ‘the symplectic nature of the fundamental group’ [22]. The geometry is richer still if we consider the moduli space of complex fundamental group representations: Due to results of Hitchin, Donaldson and Corlette, the Ka¨hler structure above now becomes a hyper-K¨ahler structure and the symplectic structure becomes a complex symplectic structure, which is still topological. One of the main aims of this paper is to generalise this complex symplectic structure. (Hyper-K¨ahler structures will not be considered here.) First recall that, over a Riemann surface, there is a one to one correspondence between complex fundamental group representations and holomorphic connections (obtained by taking a holomorphic connection to its monodromy/holonomy represen- tation). Then replace the word ‘holomorphic’ by ‘meromorphic’—we will study the symplectic geometry of moduli spaces of meromorphic connections. In fact, as in the holomorphic case, these moduli spaces may also be realised in a more topological way, using a generalised notion of monodromy data. By restricting a meromorphic connection to the complement of its polar divisor and taking the corresponding monodromy representation, a map is obtained from the moduli space of meromorphic connections to the moduli space of representations of the fundamental group of the punctured Riemann surface. For connections with only simple poles this map is generically a covering map and so we are essentially in the well-known case of representations of fundamental groups of punctured Riemann surfaces. However in general there are local moduli at the poles—it is not suﬃcient to restrict to the complement of the polar divisor and take the monodromy representation as above. Fortunately this extra data—the local moduli of meromorphic connections—has been studied in the theory of diﬀerential equations for many years and has a monodromy- type description in terms of ‘Stokes matrices’, which encode (as we will explain) the change in asymptotics of solutions on sectors at the poles. The Stokes matrices and the fundamental group representation ﬁt together in a natural way and the main question we ask is simply: “What is the symplectic geometry of these moduli spaces of generalised monodromy data?” Recently, Martinet and Ramis [50] have constructed a huge group associated to any Riemann surface, the ‘wild fundamental group’, whose set of ﬁnite dimensional representations naturally corresponds to the set of meromorphic connections on the 4 PHILIP BOALCH surface. Although we will not directly use this perspective, the question above can then be provocatively rephrased as asking: “What is the symplectic nature of the wild fundamental group?” The motivation behind these questions is to understand intrinsically the symplectic geometry of the full family of isomonodromic deformation equations of Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno [40]. The initial impetus was the theorem of B.Dubrovin [19] identifying the local moduli space of semisimple Frobenius manifolds with a space of Stokes matrices. (In brief, this means certain Stokes matrices parameterise certain two- dimensional topological quantum ﬁeld theories.) The original aim was to ﬁnd a more intrinsic approach to the intriguing (braid group invariant) Poisson structure written down by Dubrovin on this space of Stokes matrices in the rank three case (see [19] appendix F and also the recent paper [67] of M.Ugaglia for the higher rank formula). The key step in the proof of Dubrovin’s theorem is that (in the semisimple case) the WDVV equations (of Witten-Dijkgraaf-Verlinde-Verlinde) are equivalent to the equations for isomonodromic deformations of certain meromorphic connections on the Riemann sphere with just two poles, of orders one and two respectively (so the space of solutions corresponds to the moduli of such connections—the Stokes matrices). More generally Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno [40] have written down a vast family of nonlinear diﬀerential equations, governing isomonodromic deformations of meromor- phic connections over P having arbitrarily many poles of arbitrary order (on arbi- trary rank bundles). These are of independent interest and can be thought of as a universal family of nonlinear equations: They are the largest family of nonlinear diﬀerential equations known to have the ‘Painlev´e property’ (that, except on ﬁxed critical varieties, solutions will only have poles as singularities). Special cases include the six Painlev´e equations (which arise as the isomonodromic deformation equations for connections on rank two bundles over P , with total pole multiplicity four) and Schlesinger’s equations (the simple pole case—see below). In brief, the six Painlev´e equations were found almost a hundred years ago, as a means to construct new transcendental functions (namely their solutions—the Painlev´e transcendents); R.Fuchs discovered then that the sixth Painlev´e equation arises as an isomonodromic deformation equation. The subject then lay more or less dormant until the late 1970’s when (spectacularly) Wu, McCoy, Tracey and Barouch [73, 52] found that the correlation functions of certain quantum ﬁeld theories satis- ﬁed Painlev´e equations. Subsequently Jimbo, Miwa, Mˆori and Sato [60, 39] showed that this was a special case of a more general phenomenon and developed the theory of ‘holonomic quantum ﬁelds’ which led to [40]. See for example [36, 69] for more background material. One expects isomonodromic deformations to lurk underneath most integrable par- tial diﬀerential equations since the heuristic ‘Painlev´e integrability test’ says that a nonlinear PDE will be ‘integrable’ if it admits some reduction to an ODE with the Painlev´e property (for example the KdV equation has a reduction to the ﬁrst Painlev´e equation and all six Painlev´e equations appear as reductions of the anti-self- dual Yang-Mills equations; see [1, 51]). They certainly appear in a diverse range of SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 5 nonlinear problems in geometry and theoretical physics, such as Frobenius manifolds [19] or in the construction of Einstein metrics [65, 30]. On the other hand general solutions of isomonodromy equations cannot be given explicitly in terms of known special functions; as mentioned above general solutions are new transcendental functions (see [68]). This is the reason we turn to geometry to understand more about these equations. Recent work on isomonodromic deformations seems to have focused mainly on particular examples, in particular exploring the rich geometry of the six Painlev´e equations and searching for the few, very special, explicit solutions that they do admit. The question we address here is simply “What is the symplectic geometry of the full family of isomonodromic deformation equations of Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno?” Geometrically the isomonodromy equations constitute a ﬂat (Ehresmann) connec- tion on a ﬁbre bundle over a space of deformation parameters, the ﬁbres being certain moduli spaces of meromorphic connections over P . Thus the idea is to ﬁnd natu- ral symplectic structures on such moduli spaces and then prove they are preserved by the isomonodromy equations. In certain special cases, such as the Schlesinger or six Painlev´e equations the symplectic geometry is well-known (see [28, 29, 57]). The main results of this paper are analogous to those of Hitchin [29] and Iwasaki [35] who explained intrinsically why Schlesinger’s equations and certain rank two higher genus isomonodromy equations (respectively) admit a time-dependent Hamil- tonian description. However for the general isomonodromy equations considered here a Hamiltonian description is still not known: this work indicates strongly that such description should exist. (See also Remark 7.1.) For example, understanding the symplectic geometry of the isomonodromic de- formation equations enables us to ask questions about their quantisation. This has been addressed in certain cases by Reshetikhin [59] and Harnad [27] and leads to Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov type equations. A key step (Theorem 6.1) is to establish that the transcendental map taking a meromorphic connection to its (generalised) monodromy data, is a symplectic map. This is the ‘inverse monodromy theory’ version of the well-known result in inverse scattering theory, that the map from the set of initial potentials to scattering data is a symplectic map (see [20] Part 1, Chapter III). Although apparently not mentioned in the literature, a useful perspective (ex- plained in Section 7) has been to interpret the paper [40] of Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno, as stating that the Gauss-Manin connection in non-Abelian cohomology (in the sense of Simpson [64]) generalises to the case of meromorphic connections. This oﬀers a fantastic guide for future generalisation. The Prototype: Simple Poles. The simplest way to explain the results of this paper is to ﬁrst describe the intrinsic symplectic geometry of Schlesinger’s equations, following Hitchin [29]. Choose matrices A , . . . , A ∈ End(C ), distinct numbers a , . . . , a ∈ C and 1 m 1 m consider the following meromorphic connection on the trivial rank n holomorphic 6 PHILIP BOALCH vector bundle over the Riemann sphere: dz dz (1) ∇ := d − A + · · · + A . 1 m z − a z − a 1 m This has a simple pole at each a and will have no further pole at ∞ if and only if A + · · · + A = 0, which we will assume to be the case. Thus, on removing 1 m a small open disc D from around each a and restricting ∇ to the m-holed sphere i i S := P \ (D ∪ · · · ∪ D ), we obtain a (nonsingular) holomorphic connection. In 1 m particular it is ﬂat and so, taking its monodromy, a representation of the fundamental group of the m-holed sphere is obtained. This procedure deﬁnes a holomorphic map, which we will call the monodromy map, from the set of such connection coeﬃcients to the set of complex fundamental group representations: (2) (A , . . . , A ) A = 0 −→ (M , . . . , M ) M · · ·M = 1 1 m i 1 m 1 m where appropriate loops generating the fundamental group of S have been chosen and the matrix M ∈ G := GL (C) is the automorphism obtained by parallel translating i n a basis of solutions around the ith loop. This map is the key to the whole theory and is generically a local analytic isomor- phism. It is tempting to think of ν as a generalisation of the exponential function, but note the dependence on the pole positions a is rather complicated since the mon- odromy map solves Painlev´e type equations (see below). We can however study the geometry of the monodromy map, particularly the symplectic geometry. First, to remove the base-point dependence, quotient both sides of (2) by the diagonal conjugation action of G. Secondly restrict the matrices A to be in ﬁxed adjoint orbits. (These may be identiﬁed with coadjoint orbits using the trace, and so have natural complex symplectic structures.) Thus we pick m generic (co)adjoint orbits O , . . . , O and require A ∈ O . Also deﬁne C ⊂ G to be the 1 m i i i −1A ) for any A ∈ O . Fixing A ∈ O implies conjugacy class containing exp(2π i i i i i M ∈ C . The key fact now is that the sum A is a moment map for the diagonal i i i conjugation action of G on O × · · · × O and so (2) becomes 1 m (3) O × · · · × O //G −→ Hom π (S), G /G 1 m C 1 where the subscript C means we restrict to representations having local monodromy around a in the conjugacy class C . The symplectic geometry of this set of represen- i i tations has been much studied recently. The primary symplectic description is due to Atiyah and Bott [6, 5] and involves interpreting it as an inﬁnite dimensional sym- plectic quotient, starting with all C connections on the manifold-with-boundary S (see also [7]). Alternatively, a purely ﬁnite dimensional description of the symplectic structure is given by the cup product in parabolic group cohomology [13] and ﬁnding a ﬁnite dimensional proof of the closedness of this symplectic form has occupied many people. (See [41, 21, 4, 25, 3].) By construction the left-hand side of (3) is a ﬁnite dimensional symplectic quotient and one of the key results of [29] was that, for any choice of pole positions a, the monodromy map ν is symplectic; it pulls back the Atiyah-Bott symplectic structure a SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 7 on the right to the symplectic structure on the left, coming from the coadjoint orbits. This fact is the key to understanding intrinsically why Schlesinger’s equations are symplectic, as we will now explain. Observe that if we vary the positions of the poles slightly then the spaces on the left and the right of (3) do not change. However the monodromy map ν does vary. Schlesinger [61] wondered how the matrices A should vary with respect to the pole positions a , . . . , a such that the monodromy representation ν (A , . . . , A ) stays 1 m a 1 m ﬁxed, and thereby discovered the beautiful family of nonlinear diﬀerential equations which now bear his name: ∂A [A , A ] ∂A [A , A ] i i j i i j = if i 6= j, and = − . ∂a a − a ∂a a − a j i j i i j j6=i These are the equations for isomonodromic deformations of the logarithmic con- nections ∇ on P that we began with in (1). Hitchin’s observation now is that the local self-diﬀeomorphisms of the symplectic manifold O × · · · × O //G induced by 1 m integrating Schlesinger’s equations, are clearly symplectic diﬀeomorphisms, because −1 they are of the form ν ◦ν for two sets of pole positions a and a and the monodromy map is a local symplectic isomorphism for all a. This is the picture we will generalise to the case of higher order poles, after rephras- ing it in terms of symplectic ﬁbrations. The main missing ingredient is the Atiyah- Bott construction of a symplectic structure on the generalised monodromy data; when the discs are removed any local moduli at the poles is lost. We will work throughout over P since the weight of this paper is to see what to do locally at a pole of order at least two, and because our main interest is the Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno isomonodromy equations, which are for connections over P . However, apart from in Section 2 and for the explicit form of the isomonodromy equations, global coordinates on P are not used and so most of this work generalises immediately to arbitrary genus compact Riemann surfaces, possibly with boundary. The organisation of this paper is as follows. The next three sections each give a dif- ferent approach to meromorphic connections. In Section 2 we generalise the left-hand side of (3) and prove the results we will need later regarding the symplectic geometry of these spaces. Section 3 describes the generalised monodromy data of a meromor- phic connection on a Riemann surface, both the local data (the Stokes matrices) and the global data ﬁtting together the local data at each pole. This generalises the spaces of fundamental group representations above—the notion of ﬁxing the conjugacy class of local monodromy is replaced by ﬁxing the ‘formal equivalence class’. In Section 4 we introduce an appropriate notion of C singular connections and prove the basic results one might guess from the non-singular case, relating ﬂat singular connections to spaces of monodromy data and to meromorphic connections on degree zero holo- morphic bundles. The notion of ﬁxing the formal type of a meromorphic connection ∞ ∞ corresponds nicely to the notion of ﬁxing the ‘C Laurent expansion’ of a ﬂat C singular connection. Section 5 then shows that the Atiyah-Bott symplectic structure generalises naturally to these spaces of C singular connections, and that as in the non-singular case, the curvature, when deﬁned appropriately, is a moment map for 8 PHILIP BOALCH the gauge group action. Thus the spaces of generalised monodromy data also ap- pear as inﬁnite dimensional symplectic quotients. (One should note that the ‘naive’ extension of the Atiyah-Bott symplectic structure to C singular connections does not work since the two-forms that arise are too singular to be integrated.) Section 6 summarises the preceding sections in a commutative diagram and then proves the key result, that the monodromy map pulls back the Atiyah-Bott type symplectic structure on the generalised monodromy data to the explicit symplectic structure of Section 2, on the spaces of meromorphic connections. Section 7 explains geometrically what the Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno isomonodromy equations are (we will write them explicitly in the appendix), and then proves the main result, Theorem 7.1, that the isomonodromic deformation equations of Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno are equivalent to a ﬂat symplectic con- nection on a symplectic ﬁbre bundle having the moduli spaces of Section 2 as ﬁbre. Note that in the general case there are more deformation parameters: we may vary the ‘irregular types’ of the connections at the poles, as well as the pole positions. This produces, in particular, many nonlinear symplectic braid group representations on the spaces of monodromy data. Finally, we end by sketching a relationship between Stokes matrices and Poisson Lie groups. 2. Meromorphic Connections on Trivial Bundles Let D = k (a )+· · ·+k (a ) > 0 be an eﬀective divisor on P (so that a , . . ., a ∈ 1 1 m m 1 m 1 1 P are distinct points and k , . . . , k > 0 are positive integers) and let V → P be a 1 m rank n holomorphic vector bundle. Deﬁnition 2.1. A meromorphic connection ∇ on V with poles on D is a map ∇ : V → V ⊗ K(D) from the sheaf of holomorphic sections of V to the sheaf of sections of V ⊗ K(D), satisfying the Leibniz rule: ∇(fv) = (df)⊗ v + f∇v, where v is a local section of V , f is a local holomorphic function and K is the sheaf of holomorphic one-forms on P . If we choose a local coordinate z on P vanishing at a then in terms of a local trivialisation of V , ∇ has the form ∇ = d − A, where dz dz (4) A = A + · · · + A + A dz + · · · k 1 0 z z is a matrix of meromorphic one-forms and A ∈ End(C ), j ≤ k . j i Deﬁnition 2.2. A meromorphic connection ∇ will be said to be generic if at each a the leading coeﬃcient A is diagonalisable with distinct eigenvalues (if k ≥ 2), or i k i diagonalisable with distinct eigenvalues mod Z (if k = 1). This condition is independent of the trivialisation and coordinate choice. We will restrict to such generic connections since they are simplest yet suﬃcient for our pur- pose (to describe the symplectic nature of isomonodromic deformations). Deﬁnition 2.3. A compatible framing at a of a vector bundle V with generic con- n n nection ∇ is an isomorphism g : V → C between the ﬁbre V and C such that 0 a a i i the leading coeﬃcient of ∇ is diagonal in any local trivialisation of V extending g . 0 SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 9 Given a trivialisation of V in a neighbourhood of a so that ∇ = d − A as above, then a compatible framing is represented by a constant matrix (also denoted g ) that −1 diagonalises the leading coeﬃcient: g ∈ G such that g A g is diagonal. 0 0 k i 0 i 0 At each point a choose a germ d − A of a diagonal generic meromorphic con- nection on the trivial rank n vector bundle. (We use the terminology that a trivial bundle is just trivialisable, but the trivial bundle has a chosen trivialisation. Also i i 0 pre-superscripts A, whenever used, will signify local information near a .) Thus A is a matrix of germs of meromorphic one-forms, which we require (without loss of generality) to be diagonal. If z is a local coordinate vanishing at a , write i i dz i 0 i i 0 (5) A = d(Q) + Λ i 0 i where Λ is a constant diagonal matrix and Q is a diagonal matrix of meromorphic functions. Deﬁnition 2.4. A connection (V,∇) with compatible framing g at a has irregular 0 i i 0 type A if g extends to a formal trivialisation of V at a , in which ∇ diﬀers from 0 i i 0 d − A by a matrix of one-forms with just simple poles. Equivalently this means, if ∇ = d − A in some local trivialisation, we require −1 −1 i i i gAg + (dg)g = d(Q) + Λdz /z for some diagonal matrix Λ not necessarily equal i i i 0 to Λ and some formal bundle automorphism g ∈ G[[z ]] = GL (C[[z ]]) with g(a ) = g . i n i i 0 The diagonal matrix Λ appearing here will be referred to as the exponent of formal monodromy of (V,∇, g ). i 0 Let a denote the choice of the eﬀective divisor D and all the germs A . The spaces which generalise those on the left-hand side of (3) are deﬁned as follows. Deﬁnition 2.5. The moduli space M (a) is the set of isomorphism classes of pairs (V,∇) where V is a trivial rank n holomorphic vector bundle over P and ∇ is a i 0 meromorphic connection on V which is formally equivalent to d − A at a for each i and has no other poles. Following [40], we also deﬁne slightly larger moduli spaces: Deﬁnition 2.6. The extended moduli space M (a) is the set of isomorphism classes of triples (V,∇, g) consisting of a generic connection ∇ (with poles on D) on a trivial 1 1 m holomorphic vector bundle V over P with compatible framings g = ( g , . . . , g ) 0 0 i 0 such that (V,∇, g) has irregular type A at each a . The term ‘extended moduli space’ is taken from the paper [37] of L.Jeﬀrey, since these spaces play a similar role (but are not the same). Remark 2.1. For use in later sections we also deﬁne spaces M(a) and M(a) simply by replacing the word ‘trivial’ by ‘degree zero’ in Deﬁnitions 2.5 and 2.6 respectively. 10 PHILIP BOALCH ∗ ∗ Since M (a) and M (a) are moduli spaces of connections on trivial bundles we can obtain explicit descriptions of them. First deﬁne G to be the group of (k−1)-jets of bundle automorphisms: G := GL C[ζ]/ζ k n where ζ is an indeterminate. Then the main result of this section is: Proposition 2.1. • M (a) is isomorphic to a complex symplectic quotient (6) M (a) O × · · · × O //G 1 m where G := GL (C) and O ⊂ g is a coadjoint orbit of G . n i k k i e e • Similarly there are complex symplectic manifolds (extended orbits) O with dim(O ) = i i dim(O ) + 2n and (free) Hamiltonian G actions, such that f ∼ e e (7) M (a) O × · · · × O //G. 1 m • In this way M (a) inherits (intrinsically) the structure of a complex symplectic manifold, the torus actions changing the choices of compatible framings are Hamil- i ∗ tonian (with moment maps given by the values of the Λ’s) and M (a) arises as a symplectic quotient by these m torus actions. Because of the third statement here (and that M (a) may not be Hausdorﬀ) we will mainly work with the extended moduli spaces. They will be the phase spaces of the isomonodromy equations. Before proving Proposition 2.1 we ﬁrst collect together all the results we will need regarding the extended orbits O . Extended Orbits. Fix a positive integer k ≥ 2. Let B be the subgroup of G of k k elements having constant term 1. This is a unipotent normal subgroup and in fact G is the semi-direct product G ⋉ B (where G := GL (C) acts on B by conjugation). k n k Correspondingly the Lie algebra of G decomposes as a vector space direct sum and dualising we have: ∗ ∗ ∗ (8) g = b ⊕ g . k k Concretely if we have a matrix of meromorphic one-forms A as in (4) with k = k then the principal part of A can be identiﬁed as an element of g simply by replacing the coordinate z by the indeterminate ζ: dζ dζ (9) A + · · · + A ∈ g . k 1 ζ ζ Abusing notation, this element of g will also be denoted by A. Such A’s are identiﬁed as elements of g via the pairing hA, Xi := Res (Tr(A(ζ) · X)) = Tr(A X ) 0 i i−1 k i=1 k−1 ∗ where X = X + X ζ + · · · + X ζ ∈ g . Then from (8), b is identiﬁed with 0 1 k−1 k the set of A in (9) having zero residue and g with those having only a residue term ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (zero irregular part). Let π : g → g and π : g → b denote the corresponding res k irr k k projections. SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 11 0 0 k 0 2 ∗ Now choose a diagonal element A = A dζ/ζ +· · · + A dζ/ζ of b whose leading k 2 k 0 0 coeﬃcient A has distinct eigenvalues. For example if k = k , such A arises from i i 0 ∗ the irregular part d(Q) of A in (5). Let O ⊂ b denote the B coadjoint orbit B k containing A . Deﬁnition 2.7. The extended orbit O ⊂ G × g associated to O is: ∗ −1 O := (g , A) ∈ G × g π (g Ag ) ∈ O 0 0 B irr k 0 ∗ ∗ where π : g → b is the natural projection removing the residue. irr k k If (g , A) ∈ O then eventually A will correspond to the principal part of a generic meromorphic connection and g to a compatible framing. Lemma 2.2. The extended orbit O is canonically isomorphic to the symplectic quo- ∗ ∗ tient of the product T G × O by B , where both the cotangent bundle T G and the k B k k coadjoint orbit O have their natural symplectic structures. Proof. B acts by the coadjoint action on O and by the standard (free) left action k B on T G (induced from left multiplication of the groups). A moment map is given ∗ ∗ by µ : T G × O → b ; (g, A, B) 7→ −π (Ad (A)) + B where B ∈ O and (g, A) ∈ k B B k irr g ∗ ∗ G × g = T G via the left trivialisation. Thus k k −1 −1 (10) µ (0) = (g, A, B) π (gAg ) = B . irr It is straightforward to check that the map −1 (11) χ : µ (0) → O; (g, A, B) 7→ (g(0), A) is well-deﬁned, surjective and has precisely the B orbits as ﬁbres. This gives O the structure of a complex symplectic manifold. Next we examine the torus action on O corresponding to changing the choice of compatible framing. If −1 0 (g , A) ∈ O then by hypothesis there is some g ∈ G such that gAg = A + Λdζ/ζ 0 k for some matrix Λ. It is easy now to modify g such that Λ is in fact diagonal. k−1 (Conjugating by 1 + Xζ for an appropriate matrix X will remove any oﬀ-diagonal part of Λ.) It follows that there is a well-deﬁned map: dζ µ : O → t ; (g , A) 7→ −Λ , T 0 ∗ ′ ′ ′ where, as above, if R = Λdζ/ζ ∈ t and Λ ∈ t then hR, Λ i = Tr(ΛΛ ). ∗ n Lemma 2.3. 1) The map µ is a moment map for the free action of T (C ) on O deﬁned by t(g , A) = (tg , A) where t ∈ T . 0 0 2) The symplectic quotient at the value −R of µ is the G coadjoint orbit through T k 0 ∗ the element A + R of g . k 12 PHILIP BOALCH 3) Any tangents v , v to O ⊂ G × g at (g , A) are of the form 1 2 0 −1 ∗ v = (X (0), [A, X ] + g R g ) ∈ g × g i i i i 0 0 k ˙ ˙ ∼ for some X , X ∈ g and R , R ∈ t (where g = T G via left multiplication), and 1 2 k 1 2 g the symplectic structure on O is then given explicitly by the formula: ˙ e ˙ e (12) ω (v , v ) = hR , X i − hR , X i + hA, [X , X ]i e 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 −1 where X := g X g ∈ g for i = 1, 2. i 0 i k Proof. There is a surjective ‘winding’ map w : G × t → O deﬁned by (g, R) 7→ −1 0 (g(0), g (A + R)g). It ﬁts into the commutative diagram: pr ∗ −1 ∗ ∗ G × t ֒→ µ (0) ⊂ T G × O −→ T G k k B k   y y (13) e e O = O −1 0 0 where χ is from (11), pr is the projection and ι(g, R) := (g, g (A + R)g, A ). Since the O component of ι is constant the pullback of the symplectic structure on T G along pr◦ι is the pullback of the symplectic structure on O along w. Let T act on T G by the standard left action t(g, A) = (tg, A), on O by conjugation k B −1 ∗ (t(B) = tBt ) and on G × t by left multiplication: t(g, R) = (tg, R). Observe that all the maps in (13) are then T -equivariant and that a moment map on T G is ∗ ∗ −1 given by ν : T G → t ; (g, A) 7→ −δ(π (gAg )) since the map δ ◦ π (taking the k res res diagonal part of the residue term of an element of g ) is the dual of the derivative of the inclusion T ֒→ G . Statement 1) now follows from the fact that the pullback of ν along pr◦ι is the pullback of µ along w (both maps pullback to the projection ∗ ∗ G × t → t ). The third statement is proved by directly calculating the pullback of the symplectic structure on T G along pr◦ι. (Note (X , R ) is just a lift of v to k i i i G × t .) The second statement follows directly from (12). Thus, by projecting to g , we see O is a principal T bundle over an n-parameter family of G coadjoint orbits. An alternative description will also be useful: Lemma 2.4 (Decoupling). The following map is a symplectic isomorphism: ∗ −1 e ∼ O = T G × O ; (g , A) 7→ (g , π (A), π (g Ag )) B 0 0 res irr 0 ∗ ∗ where T G G × g via the left trivialisation. −1 Proof. It is an isomorphism as the map (g , S, B) 7→ (g , g Bg + S) ∈ O (where 0 0 0 (g , S, B) ∈ T G × O ) is an inverse. Under this identiﬁcation, a section s of 0 B ∗ ∗ the projection χ in (13) is given by: s : T G × O → T G × O ; (g , S, B) 7→ B k B 0 −1 (g , g Bg + S, B) where left multiplication is used to trivialise the cotangent bun- 0 0 dles. A straightforward calculation shows s is symplectic. SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 13 This will be important because O admits global Darboux coordinates. −1 −1 Corollary 2.5. The free G action h(g , A) := (g h , hAh ) on O is Hamiltonian 0 0 with moment map µ : O → g ; (g , A) 7→ π (A). G 0 res Proof. After decoupling O, G acts only on the T G factor and it does so by the standard action coming from right multiplications, which has moment map µ . Finally in the simple pole case (k = 1) not yet considered we deﬁne ∗ −1 ′ ∗ O := (g , A) ∈ G × g g Ag ∈ t ⊂ G × g 0 0 ′ ∗ where t ⊂ t is the subset containing diagonal matrices whose eigenvalues are distinct ∗ ∗ mod Z. If we identify G×g with T G then O is in fact a symplectic submanifold (see [24] Theorem 26.7). The formula (12) holds unchanged and the free G and T actions are still Hamiltonian with the same moment maps as above (the diagonalisation of −1 ′ A used to deﬁne µ is simply g Ag ). Note that the winding map w : G × t → O; T 0 −1 (g , R) 7→ (g , g Rg ) is now an isomorphism. 0 0 0 Proof [of Proposition 2.1]. Choose a coordinate z to identify P with C∪∞ such that i 0 each a is ﬁnite. Deﬁne z := z−a . The chosen meromorphic connection germs d− A i i i determine G coadjoint orbits O and extended orbits O as above: Deﬁne O to be k i i i the coadjoint orbit through the point of g determined (using the coordinate choice i 0 i 0 z ) by the principal part of A in (5). Similarly the irregular part of A determines a point of b and O is the extended orbit associated to the B coadjoint orbit through i k this point. Now suppose ∇ is a meromorphic connection on a holomorphically trivial bundle V over P with poles on the divisor D. Upon trivialising V we ﬁnd ∇ = d − A for a matrix A of meromorphic one-forms of the form dz dz i i (14) A = A + · · · + A k 1 (z − a ) (z − a ) i i i=1 where the A are n×n matrices. The principal part of A at a determines an element j i i ∗ A ∈ g as above (replacing z − a by ζ in the ith term of the sum (14)). i 0 The crucial fact now is that ∇ is formally equivalent to d − A at a if and only if A is in O . The ‘only if’ part is clear since the gauge action restricts to the coadjoint action on the principal parts of A. The converse is not true in general (even if formal meromorphic transformations are allowed: see [8]), but it does hold in the generic case we are considering here, and is well-known (see [11]). Also, using the description of the extended orbits as principal T bundles, it follows that if ∇ is generic and has 1 m i 0 compatible framings g = ( g , . . . , g ) then (V,∇, g) has irregular type A at a if 0 0 i i i and only if (g , A) is in O . 0 i 14 PHILIP BOALCH Thus any meromorphic connection on the trivial bundle with the correct formal type determines and is determined by a point of the product O ×· · ·×O . Observe 1 m however that a general point of O ×· · ·×O will give a connection with an additional 1 m pole at z = ∞ unless we impose the constraint 1 m (15) A + · · · + A = 0. 1 1 Also observe that the choice of global trivialisation of V corresponds to the action of G on O × · · · × O by diagonal conjugation. The ﬁrst statement in Proposition 2.1 1 m follows simply by observing that the left-hand side of (15) is a moment map for this G action on O × · · · × O (since the G action on each O factor is the restriction of 1 m i the coadjoint action to G ⊂ G ). The proof of the second statement is completely analogous. (The G action on O is given in Corollary 2.5.) Lemma 2.4 makes it transparent that M (a) is a smooth complex manifold: the symplectic quotient by G just removes a factor of T G from the product of extended orbits. It is straightforward to check the complex symplectic structure so deﬁned on M (a) is independent of the coordinate choices used above. (In fact arbitrary local coordinates z may be used.) Finally the statements concerning the torus actions are immediate from Lemma 2.3, since the G and T action on each extended orbit commute. Remark 2.2. Open subsets of the symplectic quotients O ×· · ·×O //G in (6) have 1 m been previously studied: They are algebraically completely integrable Hamiltonian systems [2, 12]. See also [18] Sections 4.3 and 5.3. The perspective there is to regard these as spaces of meromorphic Higgs ﬁelds, rather than as spaces of meromorphic connections. 3. Generalised Monodromy This section describes the monodromy data of a generic meromorphic connection, involving both a fundamental group representation and Stokes matrices, largely fol- lowing [8, 11, 40, 43, 50]. The presentation here is quite nonstandard however and care has been taken to keep track of all the choices made and thereby see what is intrinsically deﬁned. 1 i 0 Fix the data a of a divisor D = k (a ) on P and connection germs d − A at i i each a as in Section 2. Let (V,∇, g) be a compatibly framed meromorphic connection on a holomorphic vector bundle V → P with irregular type a. i 0 In brief, the monodromy data arises as follows. The germ d − A canonically determines some directions at a (‘anti-Stokes directions’) for each i and (using local coordinate choices) we can consider the sectors at each a bounded by these directions (and having some small ﬁxed radius). Then the key fact is that the framings g (and a choice of branch of logarithm at each pole) determine, in a canonical way, a choice SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 15 of basis of solutions of the connection ∇ on each such sector at each pole. Now along any path in the punctured sphere P \ {a . . . . , a } between two such sectors we can 1 m extend the two corresponding bases of solutions and obtain a constant n × n matrix relating these two bases. The monodromy data of (V,∇, g) is simply the set of all such constant matrices, plus the exponents of formal monodromy. Before ﬁlling in the details of this procedure we will give a concrete deﬁnition of the monodromy manifolds that store this monodromy data and so give a clear idea of where we are going. All of the monodromy manifolds are of the following form. ′ ′ Suppose N , . . . , N are manifolds, we have maps ρ : N → G to some group G for 1 m i i each i and that there is an action of G = GL (C) on G (via group automorphisms) and on each N such that ρ is G-equivariant. Deﬁne a map ρ to be the (reverse i i ordered) product of the ρ ’s: ρ : N × · · · × N → G ; (n , . . . , n ) 7→ ρ (n )· · ·ρ (n )ρ (n ). 1 m 1 m m m 2 2 1 1 ′ −1 Since G acts on G by automorphisms, ρ is G-equivariant and ρ (1) is a G-invariant subset of the product N × · · · × N . We will write the quotient as: 1 m −1 (16) N × · · · × N //G := ρ (1)/G. 1 m This is viewed simply as a convenient way to write down the various sets of mon- odromy data that arise . There is no conﬂict of notation since the symplectic quotients ′ ∗ of Section 2 arise in this way by taking N = O (or O ), G = (g , +) and the ρ ’s as i i i i the moment maps for the G actions. All of the examples in this section however will have G := G acting on itself by conjugation. Recall in the simple pole case that we ﬁxed generic coadjoint orbits O , . . . , O of 1 m G to deﬁne a symplectic space of connections on trivial bundles over P . By choosing appropriate generators of the fundamental group of the punctured sphere we see that the corresponding space of monodromy data is of the above form: (17) Hom π (P \ {a , . . ., a }), G /G = C × · · · × C //G C 1 1 m 1 m where G acts on each conjugacy class C by conjugation and each map ρ : C → G is i i i just the inclusion. Considering higher order poles in Section 2 amounted to replacing the coadjoint orbits of G above by coadjoint orbits of G (still denoted O ) or by extended orbits k i O . By analogy, in this section we now replace each conjugacy class in the simple pole case by a larger manifold C (the multiplicative version of O ), or by C (the i i i multiplicative version of O ). The basic deﬁnition is somewhat surprising: Deﬁnition 3.1. • Let U be the upper/lower triangular unipotent subgroups of +/− G, then k −1 C := G × (U × U ) × t i + − The relationship with [3] will be discussed elsewhere. 16 PHILIP BOALCH where t is the set of diagonal n × n matrices and k is the pole order at a . (If k = 1 i i i replace t by t here; the elements with distinct eigenvalues mod Z.) A point of C will i i ′ i i i be denoted (C , S, Λ ) where S = (S , . . . , S ) ∈ U × U × U × · · · × U . i 1 2k −2 + − + − i i ′ i −1 i −1 i ′ • The formula t(C , S, Λ ) = t · C , (t · S · t , . . . , t · S · t ), Λ deﬁnes a i i 1 2k −2 i ′ free action of the torus T on C and, given some ﬁxed choice of Λ , we deﬁne C to be i i the subset of the quotient having t component ﬁxed to this value: C := (C /T )|i ′. i i Λ • The map ρ : C → G is deﬁned by the formula i i i i ′ −1 i i i i ′ ρ (C , S, Λ ) = C · S · · · S · S · exp (2π −1)Λ · C . i i 2k −2 2 1 i i i (This is T invariant so descends to deﬁne ρ : C → G.) i i i i ′ −1 i i ′ • Finally G acts on C (and on C ) via g(C , S, Λ ) = (C g , S, Λ ) (so that ρ is i i i i i clearly G-equivariant, where G acts on itself by conjugation). The triangular matrices S (with 1’s on their diagonals) appearing here are the Stokes matrices. Note that in every case the dimension of C is the same as the dimension of the extended orbit O (and similarly dim(C ) = dim(O )). Also note i i i that if the pole is simple (k = 1) then C = G × t and that C can naturally be i i i i ′ identiﬁed with the conjugacy class through exp(2π −1 · Λ ) ∈ G. Our aim in the rest of this section is to deﬁne an (abstract) space of monodromy data M(a) and an intrinsic holomorphic map ν from the moduli space M (a) of Section 2 to M(a), obtained by taking monodromy data. We will call ν the mon- odromy map, although the names Riemann-Hilbert map or de Rham morphism are also appropriate. Recall in Proposition 2.1 that after making some choices (of local coordinates in that case) a concrete description of the moduli space M (a) was ob- tained. Analogously here, after making some choices (of some ‘tentacles’; something like a choice of generators of the fundamental group—see Deﬁnition 3.9), we will see that the quotient C ×· · ·×C //G is a concrete realisation of the space of monodromy 1 m data. Thus we will have the diagram: O × · · · × O //G C × · · · × C //G 1 m 1 m x x ∼ ∼ (18) = = M (a) −→ M(a). As in Section 2 we will work mainly with the extended version (putting tildes on all the spaces in the above diagram) since the spaces are then manifolds (and again the non-extended version may be deduced by considering torus actions). f ∼ e e Lemma 3.1. The extended monodromy manifold M(a) = C × · · · × C //G is indeed 1 m a complex manifold and has the same dimension as M (a). Proof. Remove the G action by ﬁxing C = 1, so M(a) is identiﬁed with the sub- ′ ′ e e e e e variety ρ · · ·ρ = 1 of the product C × C × · · · × C where C is the subset of C m 1 2 m 1 1 1 SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 17 having C = 1. The result now follows from the implicit function theorem since the e e e map ρ · · ·ρ : C × C × · · · × C → G is surjective on tangent vectors (except in m 1 2 m f e the trivial case m = 1, k = 1). In particular dim M(a) = dim(C ) − 2n and, from 1 i Proposition 2.1, this is dim M (a). Local Moduli: Stokes Matrices. First we will set up the necessary auxiliary data. Let d−A be a diagonal generic meromorphic connection on the trivial rank n vector bundle over the unit disc D ⊂ C with a pole of order k ≥ 2 at 0 and no others. Let z 0 0 dz 0 be a coordinate on D vanishing at 0. Thus (as in Section 2) A = dQ + Λ where Λ is a constant diagonal matrix and Q is a diagonal matrix of meromorphic functions. Q is determined by A and z by requiring that it has constant term zero in its Laurent expansion with respect to z. Write Q = diag(q , . . . , q ) and deﬁne q (z) to be the 1 n ij k−1 k−2 k−1 leading term of q − q . Thus if q − q = a/z + b/z + · · · then q = a/z . i j i j ij Let the circle S parameterise rays (directed lines) emanating from 0 ∈ C; intrin- sically one can think of this circle as being the boundary circle of the real oriented blow up of C at the origin. If d , d ∈ S then Sect(d , d ) will denote the (open) 1 2 1 2 sector swept out by rays rotating in a positive sense from d to d . The radius of 1 2 these sectors will be taken suﬃciently small when required later. 1 1 Deﬁnition 3.2. The anti-Stokes directions A ⊂ S are the directions d ∈ S such that for some i 6= j: q (z) ∈ R for z on the ray speciﬁed by d. ij <0 q −q i j These are the directions along which e decays most rapidly as z approaches 0 and it follows that A is independent of the coordinate choice z. (For uniform notation later, deﬁne A to contain a single, arbitrary direction if k = 1; this will be used only as a local branch cut.) Deﬁnition 3.3. Let d ∈ S be an anti-Stokes direction. • The roots of d are the ordered pairs (ij) ‘supporting’ d: Roots(d) := {(ij) q (z) ∈ R along d}. ij <0 • The multiplicity Mult(d) of d is the number of roots supporting d. • The group of Stokes factors associated to d is the group Sto (A ) := {K ∈ G (K) = δ unless (ij) is a root of d}. d ij ij It is straightforward to check that Sto (A ) is a unipotent subgroup of G = GL (C) d n of dimension equal to the multiplicity of d. Beware that the terms ‘Stokes factors’ and ‘Stokes matrices’ are used in a number of diﬀerent senses in the literature. (Our terminology is closest to Balser, Jurkat and Lutz [11]. However our approach is perhaps closer to that of Martinet and Ramis [50] but what we call Stokes factors, they call Stokes matrices, and they do not use the things we call Stokes matrices.) 18 PHILIP BOALCH The anti-Stokes directions A have π/(k − 1) rotational symmetry: if q (z) ∈ R ij <0 π −1 then q (z exp( )) ∈ R . Thus the number r := #A of anti-Stokes directions ji <0 k−1 is divisible by 2k − 2 and we deﬁne l := r/(2k − 2). We will refer to an l-tuple d = (d , . . . , d ) ⊂ A of consecutive anti-Stokes directions as a ‘half-period’. When 1 l weighted by their multiplicities, the number of anti-Stokes directions in any half- period is n(n − 1)/2 = Mult(d ) + · · · + Mult(d ). Also a half-period d determines a 1 l total ordering of the set {q , . . . , q } deﬁned by: 1 n (19) q < q ⇐⇒ (ij) is a root of some d ∈ d. i j q q i j A simple check shows (ij) is a root of some d ∈ d precisely if e /e → 0 as z → 0 along the ray θ(d) ∈ S bisecting Sect(d , d ) (so that (19) is the natural dominance 1 l ordering along θ(d)). In turn there is a permutation matrix P ∈ G associated to d given by (P ) = δ where π is the permutation of {1, . . ., n} corresponding to ij π(i)j (19): q < q ⇔ π(i) < π(j). A key result is then: i j Lemma 3.2. Let d = (d , . . . , d ) ⊂ A be a half-period (where d is the next anti- 1 l i+1 Stokes direction after d in a positive sense). 1) The product of the corresponding groups of Stokes factors is isomorphic as a variety, via the product map, to the subgroup of G conjugate to U via P : 0 −1 Sto (A ) PU P ; (K , . . . , K ) 7→ K · · ·K K ∈ G d + 1 l l 2 1 d∈d 2) Label the rest of A uniquely as d , . . . , d (in order) then the following map l+1 r from the product of all the groups of Stokes factors, is an isomorphism of varieties: 0 k−1 Sto (A ) (U × U ) ; (K , . . . , K ) 7→ (S , . . .S ) d + − 1 r 1 2k−2 d∈A −1 where S := P K · · ·K P ∈ U if i is odd/even. i il (i−1)l+1 +/− Proof. 1) holds since the groups of Stokes factors are a set of ‘direct spanning’ −1 subgroups of PU P ; see Borel [15] Section 14. It is also proved directly in Lemma 2 of [11]. 2) follows from 1) simply by observing that the orderings associated to neighbouring half-periods are opposite. Now we move on to the local moduli of meromorphic connections. Let Syst(A ) denote the set of germs at 0 ∈ C of meromorphic connections on the trivial rank n vector bundle, that are formally equivalent to d − A . Concretely we have 0 0 b b Syst(A ) = { d − A A = F [A ] for some F ∈ G[[z]] } where A is a matrix of germs of meromorphic one-forms, G[[z]] = GL (C[[z]]) and 0 −1 0 −1 0 b b b b b F [A ] = (dF )F + FA F . The group G[[z]] does not act on Syst(A ) since in general F [A ] will not have convergent entries. The subgroup G{z} := GL (C{z}) of germs of holomorphic bundle automorphisms does act however and we wish to study the quotient Syst(A )/G{z} which is by deﬁnition the set of isomorphism classes of SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 19 germs of meromorphic connections formally equivalent to A . Note that any generic connection is formally equivalent to some such A . In the Abelian case (n = 1) and in the simple pole case (k = 1) Syst(A )/G{z} is just a point; the notions of formal and holomorphic equivalence coincide. In the non-Abelian, irregular case (n, k ≥ 2) however, Syst(A )/G{z} is non-trivial and we will explain how to describe it explicitly in terms of Stokes matrices. It is useful to consider spaces slightly larger than Syst(A ): Deﬁnition 3.4. • Let Syst (A ) be the set of compatibly framed connection germs cf with both irregular and formal type A . 0 0 0 b b b b • Let Syst (A ) := {(A, F ) A ∈ Syst(A ), F ∈ G[[z]], A = F [A ]}, be the set of mp marked pairs. 0 0 Thus Syst (A ) is the set of pairs (A, g ) with A ∈ Syst(A ) and g ∈ G, such that cf 0 0 g [A] and A have the same leading term. Clearly the projection to the ﬁrst factor is 0 0 a surjection Syst (A ) ։ Syst(A ) and the ﬁbres are the orbits of the torus action cf ∗ n t(A, g ) = (A, t · g ) (where t ∈ T = (C ) ). 0 0 0 0 b ∼ b Lemma 3.3. There is a canonical isomorphism Syst (A ) Syst (A ): For each mp cf compatibly framed connection germ (A, g ) ∈ Syst (A ) there is a unique formal 0 cf −1 b b b isomorphism F ∈ G[[z]] with A = F [A ] and F (0) = g . 0 0 b b Proof. It is suﬃcient to prove that if F [A ] = A then F ∈ T , since this implies the −1 0 0 b b b map (A, F ) 7→ (A, g ) with g := F (0) , is bijective. Now if F [A ] = A then the (ij) 0 0 matrix entry f of F is a power series solution to df = (d(q − q ) + (λ − λ )dz/z)f, i j i j where λ = (Λ ) . It follows (using Deﬁnition 2.2 if k = 1) that f = 0 unless i = j i ii when it is a constant. See for example [8] for an algorithm to determine F from g . Below we will use b b ‘Syst(A )’ to denote either of these two sets. Heuristically the action g(A, F ) = (g[A], g ◦ F ) of G{z} on the marked pairs is free and so one expects the quotient 0 0 H(A ) := Syst(A )/G{z} to be in some sense nice (as is indeed the case). Moreover the actions of T and G{z} 0 0 0 on Syst(A ) commute so Syst(A )/G{z} = H(A )/T . The fundamental technical result we need to quote in order to describe H(A ) is the following theorem. First we set up a labelling convention, that will behave well when we vary A in later sections. Choose a point p in one of the r sectors at 0 bounded by anti-Stokes rays. Label the ﬁrst anti-Stokes ray when turning in a positive sense from p as d and label the subsequent rays d , . . . , d in turn. Write Sect := Sect(d , d ); 1 2 r i i i+1 the ‘ith sector’ (indices are taken modulo r). Note p ∈ Sect = Sect ; the ‘last sector’. r 0 π π Also deﬁne the ‘ith supersector’ to be Sect := Sect d − , d + . This is i i i+1 2k−2 2k−2 a sector containing the ith sector symmetrically (the same direction bisects both) and has opening greater than π/(k − 1). (The rays bounding these supersectors are usually referred to as ‘Stokes rays’.) 20 PHILIP BOALCH b b Theorem 3.1. Suppose F ∈ G[[z]] is a formal transformation such that A := F [A ] has convergent entries. Set the radius of the sectors Sect , Sect to be less than the i i radius of convergence of A. Then the following hold: 1) On each sector Sect there is a canonical way to choose an invertible n × n b b matrix of holomorphic functions Σ (F ) such that Σ (F )[A ] = A. i i b b b 2) Σ (F ) can be analytically continued to the supersector Sect and then Σ (F ) is i i i b b asymptotic to F at 0 within Sect . −1 −1 b b 3) If g ∈ G{z} and t ∈ T then Σ (g ◦ F ◦ t ) = g ◦ Σ (F ) ◦ t . i i The point is that on a narrow sector there are generally many holomorphic iso- morphisms between A and A which are asymptotic to F and one is being chosen in a canonical way; Σ (F ) is in fact uniquely characterised by property 2). There are various ways to construct Σ (F ), although the details will not be needed here. In par- b b ticular the series F is ‘(k − 1)-summable’ on Sect , with sum Σ (F )—see [10, 48, 50]. i i Other approaches appear in [11, 43]. See also [47, 72] regarding asymptotic expansions on sectors. Functions on the quotient H(A ) are now obtained as follows. Let (A, g ) ∈ b b Syst(A ) be a compatibly framed connection germ and let F ∈ G[[z]] be the asso- ciated formal isomorphism from Lemma 3.3. The sums of F on the two sectors adjacent to some anti-Stokes ray d ∈ A may be analytically continued across d and i i they will generally be diﬀerent on the overlap. Thus for each anti-Stokes ray d there −1 b b is a matrix of holomorphic functions κ := Σ (F ) ◦ Σ (F ) asymptotic to 1 on a i i i−1 0 0 sectorial neighbourhood of d . Moreover clearly κ [A ] = A ; it is an automorphism i i 0 0 of A . A concrete description of κ is obtained by choosing a basis of solutions of A , which is made via a choice of branch of log(z). Thus choose a branch of log(z) along d and extend it in a positive sense across Sect , d , Sect , d , . . . , Sect = Sect in turn. In particular we get a lift pe of the point 1 2 2 3 r 0 p ∈ Sect to the universal cover of the punctured disc D \ {0} and we will say that these log(z) choices are associated to pe. Deﬁnition 3.5. Fix data (A , z, pe) as above. The Stokes factors of a compatibly framed connection (A, g ) ∈ Syst(A ) are: 0 0 −Q −Λ Λ Q K := e z · κ · z e , i = 1, . . ., r = #A i i −1 b b using the choice of log(z) along d , where κ := Σ (F ) ◦ Σ (F ). i i i i−1 Λ Q 0 Since z e is a fundamental solution of A (i.e. its columns are a basis of solutions) we have d(K ) = 0; the Stokes factors are constant invertible matrices. By part 3) of Theorem 3.1, K only depends on the G{z} orbit of (A, g ) and so matrix entries of i 0 K are functions on H(A ). A useful equivalent deﬁnition is: 0 0 Deﬁnition 3.6. Fix data (A , z, pe) and choose (A, g ) ∈ Syst(A ). 0 SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 21 Λ Q • The canonical fundamental solution of A on the ith sector is Φ := Σ (F )z e i i where z uses the choice (determined by pe) of log(z) on Sect . (Note Φ = Φ .) i i+r i • If Φ is continued across the anti-Stokes ray d then on Sect we have: K := i i+1 i+1 i+1 −1 −1 −1 2π −1·Λ Φ ◦ Φ for all i except K := Φ ◦ Φ ◦ M for i = r, where M := e is i 1 i 0 i+1 i+1 0 the so-called ‘formal monodromy’. Taking care to use the right log(z) choices it is straightforward to prove the equiv- alence of these two deﬁnitions of the Stokes factors. The basic fact then is: Lemma 3.4. The Stokes factor K is in the group Sto (A ). i d b b Proof. From Theorem 3.1, Σ (F ) is asymptotic to F at 0 when continued within 0 0 Λ Q −Q −Λ −1 b b b the supersector Sect , for each j. Thus (if i 6= 1) z e K e z = Σ (F ) Σ (F ) j i i i−1 b b is asymptotic to 1 within the intersection Sect ∩ Sect . As K is constant we must i i−1 i q −q a b b b therefore have (K ) = δ unless e → 0 as z → 0 along any ray in Sect ∩Sect . i ab ab i i−1 It is straightforward to check this is equivalent to (ab) being a root of d . (The i = 1 case is similar.) Thus as in Lemma 3.2 we can deﬁne the Stokes matrices of (A, g ) ∈ Syst(A ): −1 S := P K · · ·K P ∈ U i il (i−1)l+1 +/− if i is odd/even, where i = 1, . . ., 2k−2 and P is the permutation matrix associated to the half-period (d , . . . , d ). To go directly from the canonical solutions to the Stokes 1 l matrices, simply observe that if Φ is continued in a positive sense across all the anti- il −1 Stokes rays d , . . ., d and onto Sect we have: Φ = Φ PS P for il+1 (i+1)l (i+1)l il (i+1)l i+1 −1 2π −1Λ i = 1, . . . , 2k − 3, and Φ = Φ PS P M for i = 2k − 2 = r/l where M = e . il l 1 0 0 The main fact we need is then: Theorem 3.2 (Balser, Jurkat, Lutz [11]). Fix the data (A , z, pe) as above. Then the ‘local monodromy map’ taking the Stokes matrices induces a bijection 0 k−1 H(A )−→(U × U ) ; [(A, g )] 7−→ (S , . . . , S ). + − 0 1 2k−2 0 (k−1)n(n−1) In particular H(A ) is isomorphic to the vector space C . Sketch. For injectivity, suppose two compatibly framed systems in Syst(A ) have b b the same Stokes matrices. Let F , F be their associated formal isomorphisms (from 1 2 Lemma 3.3). Since the Stokes matrices (and therefore the Stokes factors and the −1 b b automorphisms κ ) are equal, the holomorphic matrix Σ (F )◦Σ (F ) has no mon- j i 2 i 1 odromy around 0 and does not depend on i. Thus on any sector it has asymptotic −1 b b expansion F ◦ F and so (by Riemann’s removable singularity theorem) we deduce −1 −1 b b b b the power series F ◦ F is actually convergent with the function Σ (F ) ◦ Σ (F ) 2 i 2 i 1 as sum. This gives an isomorphism between the systems we began with: they repre- sent the same point in H(A ). Surjectivity follows from a result of Sibuya: See [11] Section 6. 22 PHILIP BOALCH Remark 3.1. The set H(A ) is also described (by the Malgrange-Sibuya isomor- phism) as the ﬁrst cohomology of a sheaf of non-Abelian unipotent groups over the circle S , explaining our notation. However we will not use this viewpoint: the sums Σ (F ) lead to canonical choices of representatives of the cohomology classes that occur. See [9, 43, 50] and the survey [70]. Finally two (by now easy) facts that we will need are: Corollary 3.5. • The torus action on H(A ) changing the compatible framing cor- −1 −1 responds to the conjugation action t(S) = (tS t , . . . , tS t ) on the Stokes ma- 1 2k−2 0 k−1 trices, and so there is a bijection Syst(A )/G{z} (U × U ) /T between the set + − of isomorphism classes of germs of meromorphic connections formally equivalent to A and the set of T -orbits of Stokes matrices. • If Φ is continued once around 0 in a positive sense, then on return to Sect it 0 0 will become −1 Φ · PS · · ·S S P M 0 2k−2 2 1 0 2π −1·Λ where M = e is the formal monodromy. Proof. The ﬁrst part is immediate from Theorem 3.1 statement 3). For the second part, from Deﬁnition 3.6 we see Φ becomes Φ · K · · ·K K M when continued to 0 i i 2 1 0 −1 Sect . Then observe K · · ·K = PS · · ·S P . i r 1 2k−2 1 Global Monodromy. Recall we have ﬁxed the data a of a divisor D = k (a ) on i i 1 i 0 P and connection germs d − A at each a . Now also choose m disjoint open discs D on P with a ∈ D and, for each i, a coordinate z on D vanishing at a . Thus i i i i i i the local picture above is repeated on each such disc. Abstractly the monodromy manifolds will be deﬁned as spaces of representations of the following groupoid Γ. Choose a base-point p ∈ P \ {a , . . . , a } and a point b in each of the sectors 0 1 m ξ bounded by anti-Stokes directions at each pole a , where ξ ranges over some ﬁnite set indexing these sectors. Let B denote the (discrete) subset of points of the universal cover of the punctured disc D \ {a }, which are above one of the b ’s. Let B := i i ξ e e e {p }∪B ∪· · ·∪B . If pe∈ B we will write p for the point of P underlying pe (namely 0 1 m p or one of the b ’s). 0 ξ e e Deﬁnition 3.7. 1) The set of objects of the groupoid Γ is the set B. e e 2) If pe , pe ∈ B, the set of morphisms of Γ from pe to pe is the set of homotopy 1 2 1 2 classes of paths γ : [0, 1] → P \ {a , . . . , a } from p to p . 1 m 1 2 This is clearly a groupoid with multiplication (of composable morphisms) deﬁned by path composition. Now let (V,∇, g) be a compatibly framed meromorphic connection with irregular i 0 type A at a for each i. (Thus, if V is trivial, (V,∇, g) represents a point of the i SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 23 extended moduli space M (a).) For each choice of basis of the ﬁbre V of V at p p 0 such (V,∇, g) naturally determines a representation of the groupoid Γ in the group G = GL (C), as follows. Suppose [γ ] is a morphism in Γ, represented by a path γ in the punctured pe pe pe pe 2 1 2 1 sphere from p to p . Then from Deﬁnition 3.6 (with pe = pe ) we obtain a canonical 1 2 i choice of basis Φ : C → V of ∇-horizontal sections of V in a neighbourhood of p for i = 1, 2. (First use any local trivialisation of V , and then observe the basis obtained is independent of this choice. In the case pe = p , use the choice of basis of i 0 V to determine Φ .) Now both bases extend uniquely (as solutions of ∇) along the p i track γ ([0, 1]) of the path γ . Since they are both ∇-horizontal bases we have pe pe pe pe 2 1 2 1 Φ = Φ · C on the track of γ , for some constant invertible matrix C ∈ G. The 1 2 pe pe 2 1 representation ρ of Γ is deﬁned by setting −1 (20) ρ(γ ) := C = Φ Φ . pe pe 2 1 2 1 Clearly C only depends on the homotopy class of the path in P \ {a , . . . , a } and 1 m it is easy to check this is indeed a representation. (For example ρ maps contractible loops to 1 and has composition property ρ(γ · γ ) = ρ(γ ) · ρ(γ ).) pe pe pe pe pe pe pe pe 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 Thus ρ encodes all possible ‘connection matrices’ between sectors at diﬀerent poles as well as all the Stokes factors and Stokes matrices at each pole. To characterise the representations of Γ that arise in this way we observe: Lemma 3.6. The representation ρ has the following two properties: e e (SR1) For any i, if pe ∈ B and pe is the next element of B after pe in a positive 1 i 2 i 1 i 0 sense and γ is a small arc in D from p to p then ρ(γ ) ∈ Sto (A ), where d pe pe i 1 2 pe pe d 2 1 2 1 is the unique anti-Stokes ray that γ crosses. pe pe 2 1 (SR2) For each i there is a diagonal matrix Λ (which has distinct eigenvalues mod e e Z if k = 1) such that for any pe ∈ B , pe ∈ B and morphism γ : i 1 i 2 pe pe 2 1 ρ(γ ) = ρ(γ ) · exp(2π −1 · Λ) pe (pe +2π) pe pe 2 1 2 1 where γ = γ as paths, but (pe + 2π) is the next point of B after pe (in a pe (pe +2π) pe pe 1 i 1 2 1 2 1 positive sense) which is also above p . Proof. The ﬁrst part is immediate from Deﬁnition 3.5 and Lemma 3.4 whilst the second is clear from the deﬁnition of the canonical solutions, with Λ the exponent of formal monodromy of (V,∇, g) at a . Deﬁnition 3.8. • A Stokes representation ρ is a representation of the groupoid Γ into G together with a choice of m diagonal matrices Λ such that (SR1) and (SR2) hold. The set of Stokes representations will be denoted Hom (Γ, G). S 24 PHILIP BOALCH • The matrices Λ associated to a Stokes representation ρ will be called the expo- nents of formal monodromy of ρ and the number deg(ρ) := Tr(Λ) is the degree of ρ. • Two Stokes representations are isomorphic if they are in the same orbit of the e e following G action on Hom (Γ, G): if pe , pe ∈ B \ {p }, g ∈ G deﬁne S 1 2 0 −1 (g · ρ)(γ ) = gρ(γ )g , (g · ρ)(γ ) = gρ(γ ), p p p p p pe p pe 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 −1 (g · ρ)(γ ) = ρ(γ )g , (g · ρ)(γ ) = ρ(γ ). pe p pe p pe pe pe pe 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 1 f e • The extended monodromy manifold M(a) := Hom (Γ, G)/G is the set of isomor- phism classes of Stokes representations. Observe that this G action on Hom (Γ, G) corresponds to the choice of basis of the ﬁbre V made above, and so a compatibly framed meromorphic connection (V,∇, g) f f canonically determines a point of M(a). (Also M(a) does not depend on the choices of the base-points p , b that were used to deﬁne the groupoid Γ.) 0 ξ Proposition 3.7 (see [40]). Two compatibly framed meromorphic connections are isomorphic if and only if they have isomorphic Stokes representations. 1 1 1 2 2 2 Proof. Suppose (V ,∇ , g ), (V ,∇ , g ) are isomorphic and both have irregular i 0 1 2 type A at each a . Thus there is a vector bundle isomorphism ϕ : V → V which relates the connections and the framings. It is easy to check now that, for each i, ϕ 1,2 n 1,2 also relates the canonical bases Φ (z ) : C → V of solutions on each sector at a , i i associated to any point pe ∈ B . This implies the Stokes representations are isomor- phic. Conversely if the Stokes representations are isomorphic the local isomorphisms 2 1 −1 1 2 1 Φ ◦ (Φ ) : V → V extend to P to give the desired isomorphism ϕ, as in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Thus on restricting attention to connections on trivial bundles we get a well-deﬁned ∗ ∗ f f f injective map νe : M (a) → M(a) from the extended moduli space M (a) of Section 2. This is the (extended) monodromy map and is the key ingredient in the whole isomonodromy story. It is a map between complex manifolds of the same dimen- sion (see Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 3.8) and moreover results of Sibuya and Hsieh [63, 32, 62] imply it is holomorphic. (They prove each canonical fundamental solu- tion varies holomorphically with parameters and therefore so does all the monodromy data—see also [40] Proposition 3.2.) It follows immediately that νe is surjective on tan- gent vectors and biholomorphic onto its image (since any injective holomorphic map between equi-dimensional complex manifolds has these properties—see for example [58] Theorem 2.14). We will see in Section 7 that the image of νe is the complement of a divisor in the degree zero component of M(a). Now we wish to describe the monodromy manifold M(a) more explicitly and this requires the following choices: Deﬁnition 3.9. A choice of tentacles T is a choice of: SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 25 1) A point p in some sector at a between two anti-Stokes rays (i = 1, . . ., m). i i 2) A lift pe of each p to the universal cover of the punctured disc D \ {a }. i i i i 3) A base-point p ∈ P \ {a , . . . , a }. 0 1 m 4) A path γ : [0, 1] → P \ {a , . . . , a } in the punctured sphere, from p to p for i 1 m 0 i i = 1, . . . , m, such that the loop −1 −1 −1 (21) (γ · β · γ )· · ·· · · (γ · β · γ ) · (γ · β · γ ) m m 2 2 1 1 m 2 1 based at p is contractible in P \{a , . . ., a }, where β is any loop in D \{a } based 0 1 m i i i at p encircling a once in a positive sense. i i Proposition 3.8. For each choice of tentacles T there is an explicit algebraic iso- f e e morphism ϕe : M(a) → C × · · · × C //G from the extended monodromy manifold to T 1 m the ‘explicit monodromy manifold’ of Deﬁnition 3.1 and (16). −1 e e Proof. The choice T determines an isomorphism Hom (Γ, G)−→ρ (1) ⊂ C ×· · ·× S 1 C as follows. Recall, using the convention used before, that the chosen point pe ∈ T m i determines a labelling of, and a log(z ) choice on, each sector and anti-Stokes ray e e at a . Let b be the element of B lying in the corresponding lift of the jth sector i j i Sect at a to the universal cover of the punctured disc D \ {a }. Without loss of j i i i generality we assume that b = pe and that the base-point p of Γ and T is the 0 i 0 same. Also the labelling determines a permutation matrix P associated to each a i i (see Lemma 3.2). (If k = 1 set P = 1.) Let γ be the morphism of Γ from p to i i pe p 0 i 0 −1 pe corresponding to the path γ and deﬁne C := P ρ(γ ) ∈ G for i = 1, . . . , m. i i i pe p i i 0 i i i e e Next let σ be the morphism from b to b with underlying path a simple arc j (j−1)·l j·l i i in D \ {a } from b to b in a positive sense (where l = l = r /(2k − 2) and i i (j−1)·l j·l i i i r = #A). Then deﬁne the Stokes matrices (as explained before Theorem 3.2) by the −1 −1 −1 i i i i i formulae: S := P ρ( σ )P for j = 2, . . ., 2k − 2 and S := P ρ( σ ) · M · P . j j i i 1 0 i i i 0 −1 i ′ i i Finally set Λ = P ΛP where Λ is the ith exponent of formal monodromy of ρ (Deﬁnition 3.8). Thus a Stokes representation ρ determines a point (C, S, Λ ) of 1 m i e e the product C × · · · × C , where C = (C , C , . . . , C ), S = ( S, . . . , S), S := 1 m 1 2 m −1 i i ′ 1 ′ m ′ (S , . . . , S ) and Λ = ( Λ , . . . , Λ ). Now observe that the value ρ(γ · β · γ ) 1 2k −2 i i i i −1 of the representation ρ on the loop γ · β · γ based at p is equal to the value i i 0 i i ′ ρ (C , S, Λ ) of the map ρ : C → G, and so the contractibility of the loop (21) implies i i i the monodromy data (C, S, Λ ) satisﬁes the constraint ρ · · ·ρ = 1. This deﬁnes the m 1 −1 map Hom (Γ, G) → ρ (1) and it is straightforward to see it is an isomorphism (using Lemma 3.2 and knowledge of the fundamental group of the punctured sphere). This map is G-equivariant and so descends to give ϕe . Now we turn to the non-extended version. First, taking the exponents of formal 1 m monodromy Λ = ( Λ, . . . , Λ) of any Stokes representation ρ induces a map µ m : M(a) −→ t ; ρ 7−→ Λ. T 26 PHILIP BOALCH Also for each pole a there is a torus action on Hom (Γ, G) deﬁned by the formulae i S −1 −1 (t · ρ)(γ ) = tρ(γ )t (t · ρ)(γ ) = ρ(γ )t pe pe pe pe qe pe qe pe 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 (22) (t · ρ)(γ ) = ρ(γ ) (t · ρ)(γ ) = tρ(γ ) qe qe qe qe pe qe pe qe 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 e e e for any pe , pe ∈ B and qe , qe ∈ B \ B , where t ∈ T . 1 2 i 1 2 i Deﬁnition 3.10. • The (non-extended) space of monodromy data M(a) is the set m 0 of T orbits in M(a) which have exponents of formal monodromy equal to Λ = 1 0 m 0 i 0 i 0 ( Λ , . . . , Λ ), where Λ = Res (A ): −1 0 m M(a) := µ (Λ )/T . • The monodromy map is the map ν : M (a) → M(a) induced from the extended monodromy map. The monodromy map is well-deﬁned since part 3) of Theorem 3.1 implies that the extended monodromy map is T -equivariant and also since it is clear that µ ◦ νe is m ∗ the moment map for the T action on the extended moduli space M (a) (deﬁned in Proposition 2.1). Corollary 3.9. For each choice of tentacles T there is an explicit algebraic isomor- phism ϕ : M(a) → C × · · · × C //G from the monodromy space to the explicit set T 1 m of monodromy data from Deﬁnition 3.1 (with C depending on T ). Proof. The choice of tentacles determines a permutation matrix P for i = 1, . . . , m. −1 i ′ i 0 Then deﬁne Λ := P · Λ · P and use this value to deﬁne C . The rest now follows i i from Proposition 3.8 since ϕe is T -equivariant, where (t , . . . , t ) acts on C via T 1 m i −1 (P t P ) ∈ T and the T -action of Deﬁnition 3.1. i i Remark 3.2. (Degree.) If ρ is a Stokes representation having exponents of formal monodromy Λ then the degree deg(ρ) = Tr(Λ) of ρ is an integer. One way to see this is to choose some tentacles so ρ determines (via Proposition 3.8) a point e e (C, S, Λ ) of C × · · · × C satisfying the constraint ρ · · ·ρ = 1. By taking the 1 m m 1 P P i ′ i determinant of this constraint we see that Tr(Λ ) = Tr(Λ) ∈ Z. (It is also i i clear that the ﬁxed-degree components M (a) of the extended monodromy manifolds are pairwise isomorphic.) On the other hand suppose (V,∇, g) is a compatibly framed meromorphic connection on a holomorphic vector bundle V → P with irregular type a and exponents of formal monodromy Λ. Then by considering the induced n i connection on the determinant line bundle Λ V of V one ﬁnds that Tr(Λ) is equal to the degree of the vector bundle V . The only point we need to make here i 0 i 0 is that the germs A must be chosen such that Tr(Λ ) = 0, if the moduli spaces M (a) are to be non-empty, and so we will tacitly assume this throughout. To end this section we describe the dependence on the local coordinate choices z that were made right at the start. Let a be a choice of divisor D and connection SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 27 i 0 ∗ ∗ f f germs d − A as above. This determines all the spaces M (a), M(a),M (a) and M(a). f f Proposition 3.10. 1) The extended monodromy map νe : M (a) → M(a) depends (only) on the choice of a k -jet of a coordinate z at each a . i i i 2) This coordinate dependence is only within the T orbits: The monodromy map ν : M (a) → M(a) is completely intrinsic. Λ Q Proof. The key point is to see how a fundamental solution Φ = Σ (F )z e changes when the coordinate z is changed. Here A = dQ + Λdz/z is ﬁxed and Q is deter- mined by (A , z) by requiring it to have zero constant term in its Laurent expansion ′ f with respect to z. Suppose z = ze is a new coordinate choice, for some local holo- morphic function f. One ﬁnds Q = Q − Λf + Λf(0) − Res (Qdf) (as meromorphic ′ ′ ′ ′ −1 functions near z = 0), since then Res (Q dz /z ) = 0. In turn Φ = Φ · t where t = exp(Res (Qdf) − Λf(0)) ∈ T . (The function Σ (F ) is intrinsic.) Then observe: 0 j 1) If f = O(z ) then t = 1, since Q has a pole of order k − 1, and 2) This action of t ∈ T corresponds to the torus action we have deﬁned. ∗ ∗ f f Remark 3.3. One should also note that all the spaces M (a), M(a),M (a) and i 0 M(a) only depend on the principal part of each germ A . For the monodromy ∗ ∗ manifolds this is immediate and for the moduli spaces M (a),M (a) it is because i 0 all A with the same principal part are formally equivalent via a transformation with constant term 1 (as explained in Section 2). 4. C Approach to Meromorphic Connections This section gives a third viewpoint on meromorphic connections: a C approach. Although we work exclusively with ‘generic’ connections over P (as we wish to study isomonodromic deformations of such connections) we remark that this C approach works over arbitrary compact Riemann surfaces (maybe with boundary) and the generic hypothesis is also superﬂuous (see Remark 4.2). Singular Connections: C Connections with Poles. Let D = k (a ) + · · · + 1 1 1 1 k (a ) be an eﬀective divisor on P as usual and choose m disjoint discs D ⊂ P m m i with a ∈ D and a coordinate z on D vanishing at a . Deﬁne the sheaf of ‘smooth i i i i i functions with poles on D’ to be the sheaf of C sections of the holomorphic line bundle associated to the divisor D: ∞ ∞ C [D] := O[D] ⊗ C where O is the sheaf of holomorphic functions and C the inﬁnitely diﬀerentiable ∞ i complex functions. Any local section of C [D] near a is of the form f/z for a ∞ r ∞ C function f. Similarly deﬁne sheaves Ω [D] of C r-forms with poles on D (so in 28 PHILIP BOALCH 0 ∞ ∞ particular Ω [D] = C [D]). A basic feature is that ‘C -Laurent expansions’ can be taken at each a . This gives a map −k ∗ 1 i 2 (23) L : Ω [D](P ) → C[[z , z ]]z ⊗ C i i i 2 ∞ where C = Cdz ⊕Cdz . For example if f is a C function deﬁned in a neighbourhood i i k k i i of a then L f/z = L (f)/z where L (f) is the Taylor expansion of f at a . i i i i i i i The Laurent map L has nice morphism properties, for example L (ω ∧ ω ) = i i 1 2 L (ω ) ∧ L (ω ) and L commutes with the exterior derivative d, where d is deﬁned i 1 i 2 i −1 2 on the right-hand side of (23) in the obvious way (d(z ) = −dz /z ). i i We will repeatedly make use of the fact that the kernel of L consists of nonsingular forms, that is: if L (ω) = 0 then ω is nonsingular at a . This apparently innocuous i i statement is surprisingly tricky to prove directly, but since it is crucial for us we remark it follows from the following: Lemma 4.1 (Division). Let D ⊂ C be a disk containing the origin. Suppose f ∈ C (D) and that the Taylor expansion of f at 0 is in the ideal in C[[z, z]] generated by z. Then f/z ∈ C (D). Proof. This is a special case of a much more general result of Malgrange [44]. The particular instance here is discussed by Martinet [49] p115. Another fact we will use is that the C Laurent expansion map L in (23) is surjective for each i. This is due to a classical result of E.Borel which we quote here in the relative case that will be needed later: Theorem 4.1 (E. Borel). Suppose U is a diﬀerentiable manifold, I is a compact neighbourhood of the origin in R and f ∈ C[[x, y]] ⊗ C (U) (where x, y are real 2 ∞ coordinates on C R ). Then there exists a smooth function f ∈ C (U × I × I) such that the Taylor expansion of f at x = y = 0 is f. Proof. This is easily deduced, via partitions of unity, by using two applications of the version of Borel’s theorem proved on p16 of H¨ormander’s book [31]. 1 ∞ Now let V → P be a rank n, C complex vector bundle. Deﬁnition 4.1. A C singular connection ∇ on V with poles on D is a map ∇ : 1 ∞ V −→ V ⊗ Ω [D] from the sheaf of (C ) sections of V to the sheaf of sections of V ⊗ Ω [D], satisfying the Leibniz rule: ∇(fv) = (df) ⊗ v + f∇v where v is a local section of V and f is a local C function. Concretely in terms of the local coordinate z on P vanishing at a and a local i i i i i ∞ trivialisation of V , ∇ has the form: ∇ = d− A/z where A is an n×n matrix of C one-forms. In this paper, to study the Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno isomonodromy equations, we need only to consider the case when V is the trivial rank n, C vector bundle 1 1 ∞ over P . (Recall any degree zero vector bundle over P is C trivial.) SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 29 Deﬁnition 4.2. • Let A[D] denote the set of C singular connections with poles on D on the ∞ 1 1 trivial C rank n vector bundle: A[D] := d − α α ∈ End Ω [D](P ) where 1 ∞ Ω [D] is the sheaf of C one-forms with poles on D. ∞ ∞ 1 • The gauge group of C bundle automorphisms is G := GL (C (P )). • The curvature of a singular connection d − α ∈ A[D] is the matrix of singular 2 2 2 1 two-forms F(α) := (d − α) = −dα + α ∈ End Ω [2D](P ) . • The ﬂat connections are those with zero curvature and the subset of ﬂat singular connections will be denoted A [D]. Remark 4.1. Occasionally one comes across notions of curvature of singular connec- tions involving distributional derivatives. For example a meromorphic connection on a Riemann surface is sometimes said to have a δ-function singularity in its curvature at the pole, to account for the monodromy around the pole. The deﬁnition above of curvature does not involve distributional derivatives, and so, for us, any meromorphic connection over a Riemann surface is ﬂat. The group G of bundle automorphisms clearly acts on the singular connections −1 −1 A[D] and explicitly this is given by the formula g[α] = gαg +(dg)g . This restricts −1 to an action on A [D] since F(g[α]) = g(F(α))g for g ∈ G. i 0 Now choose a generic diagonal connection germ d − A at a for each i and let a denote this m-tuple of germs and the divisor D, as usual. Since d − α ∈ A[D] is on i 0 the trivial vector bundle, and d − A is a germ of a connection on the trivial bundle, i 0 we can compare the Laurent expansion of α at a with A . In particular the following deﬁnition makes sense: Deﬁnition 4.3. • Let A(a) be the set of singular connections with ﬁxed Laurent expansions: i 0 A(a) := d − α ∈ A[D] L (α) = A for each i . • Let A(a) be the following extended set of singular connections with ﬁxed Laurent expansions: dz i 0 i i 0 i A(a) := d − α ∈ A[D] L (α) = A + (Λ − Λ ) for some Λ ∈ t i i i 0 i 0 ′ where Λ = Res (A ), t = t if k ≥ 2 and t = t if k = 1. 0 i i i i • Let G and G denote the subgroups of G of elements having Taylor expansion T 1 equal to a constant diagonal matrix or the identity, respectively, at each a . The basic motivation for this deﬁnition is Corollary 4.4 below. Note that A(a) is an aﬃne space and that if d − α ∈ A(a) then (from the division lemma above) the (0, 1) part of α is nonsingular over all of P . 30 PHILIP BOALCH ∞ 0 Smooth Local Picture. Now we will give a C description of the sets H(A ) and the local analytic classes Syst(A )/G{z} deﬁned in Section 3. We begin with a straightforward observation. Let z be a complex coordinate on the unit disc D ⊂ C. From Borel’s theorem we have an exact sequence of groups: 0 0 0 1−→ G −→ G−→GL (C[[z, z]])−→1. 1 n 0 0 where G is the group of germs at 0 of gauge transformations g ∈ G and G := Ker(L ) 1 0 is the subgroup of germs with Taylor expansion 1. Fix a generic diagonal connection germ d − A with an order k pole at z = 0. By projecting a marked pair (A, F ) onto its second factor we obtain an injection 0 0 b b Syst(A ) ֒→ G[[z]] (see Lemma 3.3) and so in turn may regard Syst(A ) as a subset of 0 −1 0 0 b b GL (C[[z, z]]). Deﬁne S(A ) := L (Syst(A )) to be the lift of this subset to G. Also ∗ n 0 −1 (C ) , that is deﬁne G := L (T ). lift the stabiliser torus T = Lemma 4.2. Taking Taylor series at 0 induces isomorphisms: 0 0 0 (24) G{z}\S(A )/ G = H(A ) 0 0 and (by considering the residual action of G / G = T ): T 1 0 0 0 b ∼ (25) G{z}\S(A )/ G = Syst(A )/G{z}. 0 0 0 0 0 ∼ ∼ b b Proof. First observe L induces isomorphisms S(A )/ G = Syst(A ) and G / G = 0 1 T 1 0 0 T . Then recall H(A ) := G{z}\Syst(A ) Having lifted things up into a smooth context a new interpretation of the smooth quotients above will be given. In particular it is desirable to remove the groups G{z} occurring on the left-hand sides in (24) and (25). 0 0 ∞ Let A[k] = A[k(0)] denote the set of germs at 0 of C singular connections on the trivial bundle, with poles of order at most k. 0 0 Now given g ∈ S(A ) we can apply the formal transformation L (g) to A to obtain 0 ∞ a meromorphic connection A := L (g)[A ]. Now apply the C gauge transformation −1 −1 −1 0 g to A to deﬁne a singular connection σ(g) := g [A] = g [L (g)[A ]]. This deﬁnes 0 0 a map σ : S(A ) → A[k]. Observe that • σ(g) has Laurent expansion A (from the morphism properties of L ), • If h ∈ G{z} is holomorphic then σ(hg) = σ(g), as h[A] = L (h)[A], and • σ(g) is a ﬂat singular connection, since it is C gauge equivalent to the mero- morphic connection A. Thus σ gives a map into the ﬂat connection germs with Laurent expansion A , i.e. 0 0 into A (A ). In fact it is surjective and its ﬁbres are precisely the G{z} orbits: Proposition 4.3. The map σ deﬁned above induces an isomorphism 0 0 0 G{z}\S(A )−→A (A ) ﬂ SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 31 onto the set of ﬂat singular connection germs with Laurent expansion A . Proof. We have seen the induced map is well deﬁned and now show it is bijective. 0 0 For surjectivity, suppose d − α ∈ A (A ) is a ﬂat singular connection with Laurent 0 0,1 expansion A . Thus the dz component α of α has zero Laurent expansion at 0 and so in particular is nonsingular. It follows (see [6] p555 or [9] p67) that there exists 0 −1 0,1 −1 g ∈ G with (∂g)g = α and so A := g [α] is still ﬂat and has no (0, 1) part. By writing A = γdz/z for smooth γ observe that ﬂatness implies ∂γ = 0 and so A is meromorphic. We claim now that A is formally equivalent to A , and that L (g) is a formal isomorphism between them. Firstly L (g) has no terms containing z because 0,1 0,1 L (∂g) = L (α g) = 0 since L (α ) = 0. Secondly just observe 0 0 0 −1 0 −1 −1 L (g )[A ] = L (g )[L (α)] = L (g [α]) = L (A) = A 0 0 0 0 0 −1 0 −1 and so the claim follows. In particular g ∈ S(A ) and by construction σ(g ) = α and so σ is onto. Finally if g [A] = g [B] with A, B meromorphic then h[A] = B with 1 2 −1 −1 h := g g . Looking at (0, 1) parts gives (∂h)h = 0 and so h is holomorphic. This proves injectivity. Combining this with Lemma 4.2 immediately yields the main local result: Corollary 4.4. There are canonical isomorphisms: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ∼ ∼ A (A )/ G H(A ) and A (A )/ G Syst(A )/G{z} = = ﬂ 1 ﬂ T 0 0 between the G orbits of ﬂat singular connection germs with Laurent expansion A and the set of analytic equivalence classes of compatibly framed systems with formal 0 0 type A , and between the G orbits of ﬂat singular connection germs with Laurent expansion A and the set of analytic equivalence classes of connection germs formally equivalent to A . 0 0 0 Proof. This follows directly by substituting A (A ) for G{z}\S(A ) in Lemma 4.2. 0 0 0 In summary: to go from a ﬂat singular connection d − α ∈ A (A ) to H(A ) just −1 0,1 −1 solve (∂g)g = α and take the G{z} orbit of L (g ) ∈ G[[z]] to give an element 4.3). Conversely, given F ∈ G[[z]] such that of H(A ) (see the proof of Proposition 0 0 −1 b b A := F [A ] is convergent, use E.Borel’s theorem to ﬁnd g ∈ G such that L (g) = F . 0 0 Then set α = g[A] to give α ∈ A (A ). Thus the analytic equivalence classes may be encoded in an entirely C way. These bijections can be thought of as relating the two distinguished types of elements (the meromorphic connections and the connections with ﬁxed Laurent expansion) 0 0 0 within the G orbits in A [k]. That is, they relate the conditions α ∈ Syst(A ) and 0 0 0 0 α ∈ A (A ) on α ∈ A [k] by moving within α’s G orbit. ﬂ ﬂ Remark 4.2. Corollary 4.4 easily extends to the general (non-generic) case, with the same proof. The precise statement is as follows (but won’t be needed elsewhere 32 PHILIP BOALCH in this paper). Let d − A be any meromorphic connection germ and let G Stab(A) be the subgroup of G consisting of elements g whose Taylor expansion stabilises A (i.e. L (g)[A] = A). Then the set of analytic isomorphism classes of meromor- phic connection germs formally equivalent to A is canonically isomorphic to the set of G -orbits of ﬂat singular connection germs with Laurent expansion A: Stab(A) 0 0 ∼ b Syst(A)/G{z} = A (A)/ G . Similarly H(A) := Syst (A)/G{z} is canonically ﬂ mp Stab(A) 0 0 isomorphic to A (A)/ G (but in general this cannot be interpreted in terms of com- ﬂ 1 patibly framed systems, only in terms of marked pairs). Globalisation. Recall we have ﬁxed the data a (of a divisor D = k (a ) on P i i i 0 and connection germs d− A ) and deﬁned A(a) to be the set of singular connections 1 i 0 on the trivial rank n vector bundle on P having Laurent expansion A at a for each i. Following the results of the last section we are led to consider such connections which are ﬂat. The main result is: Proposition 4.5. There is a canonical bijection between the set of G orbits of ﬂat C singular connections with ﬁxed Laurent expansions a and the set of isomorphism classes of meromorphic connections with formal type a on degree zero holomorphic bundles over P : M(a) = A (a)/G . ﬂ T Proof. Suppose (V,∇) represents an isomorphism class in M(a). The meromor- phic connection ∇ is in particular a C singular connection, according to Deﬁnition 4.1. Since V is degree zero it is C trivial so, by choosing a trivialisation, (V,∇) determines a singular connection d − α on the trivial bundle over P . i 0 From the local picture just described, since ∇ is formally equivalent to A at a , i 0 we can choose g ∈ G such that g[α] has Laurent expansion A at a for all i. This gives an element g[α] of A (a) and we take the G orbit through it to deﬁne the ﬂ T required map. We need to check this G orbit only depends on the isomorphism class of (V,∇) and that the map is bijective. ′ ′ ∞ Suppose we have two such pairs (V,∇) and (V ,∇ ) and we choose C trivialisa- ′ ′ tions of V and V so that ∇,∇ give singular connections d − α , d − α respectively. 1 2 ′ ′ Now a standard ∂-operator argument implies (V,∇) (V ,∇ ) if and only if α and α are in the same G orbit. Thus an isomorphism class [(V,∇)] of meromorphic connections determines (and is determined by) a G orbit of singular connections on the trivial bundle. This G orbit has a subset of singular connections having Laurent i 0 expansion A at a for each i. This subset is a G orbit of singular connections (since i T i 0 T is the stabiliser of A ) and is the element of A (a)/G corresponding to [(V,∇)]. ﬂ T Corollary 4.6. The set M(a) of isomorphism classes of triples (V,∇, g) consisting of a generic meromorphic connection ∇ (with poles on D) on a degree zero holomorphic vector bundle V over P with compatible framings g such that (V,∇, g) has irregular SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 33 type a is canonically isomorphic to the set of G orbits of ﬂat connections in A(a): f ∼ e M(a) = A (a)/G . ﬂ 1 Proof. As in Corollary 4.4, replacing G by G in Proposition 4.5 corresponds to T 1 incorporating a compatible framing as required for M(a). The desired isomorphism is then obtained by simply repeating the proof of Proposition 4.5 for each possible set of choices of exponents of formal monodromy Λ. Monodromy of Flat Singular Connections. Having related the C approach to meromorphic connections we now relate it to the monodromy approach of Section 3. The key step is to deﬁne the generalised monodromy data of ﬂat C singular con- nections with ﬁxed Laurent expansions, but this is easy since they too have canonical solutions on sectors: 0 0 Lemma 4.7. Suppose α ∈ A (A ). For each choice of log(z) there is a canonical choice Φ of fundamental solution of α on Sect , given by: i i −1 Λ Q Φ := gΣ (L (g ))z e i i 0 0 −1 0,1 for any g ∈ G solving (∂g)g = α . Proof. From the proof of Proposition 4.3, such g is unique up to right multiplication −1 0 −1 by h ∈ G{z} and A := L (g )[A ] = g [α] is a convergent meromorphic connection −1 0 germ. Theorem 3.1 then provides an analytic isomorphism Σ (L (g )) between A i 0 −1 0 and A on Sect . It follows that gΣ (L (g )) is an isomorphism between A and α i i 0 which is independent of the choice of g. Composing this with the fundamental solu- Λ Q 0 tion z e of A gives the result. Thus, exactly as in Section 3, a singular connection d − α ∈ A(a) determines a Stokes representation ρ (upto isomorphism). This gives a map (which will be referred to as the C monodromy map): e f νe : A (a) −→ M(a); α 7−→ [ρ]. Since the connections in A (a) are on a degree zero bundle, the image of νe is in the degree zero component M (a) of the extended monodromy manifold (see Remark 3.2). The main result is then: e f Proposition 4.8. The C monodromy map νe : A (a) −→ M (a) is surjective and ﬂ 0 has precisely the G orbits in A (a) as ﬁbres, so that 1 ﬂ e ∼ f A (a)/G = M (a). ﬂ 1 0 e f Moreover νe intertwines the G action on A (a) with the G action on M (a) deﬁned T ﬂ T 0 via the evaluation map G → T and the torus actions of (22). T 34 PHILIP BOALCH Before proving this we deduce what the monodromy data corresponds to in the meromorphic world: Corollary 4.9. Taking monodromy data induces bijections: ∼ ∼ f f M(a) = M (a) and M(a) = M(a) between the spaces of meromorphic connections on degree zero bundles and the corre- sponding spaces of monodromy data. In particular M(a) inherits the structure of a complex manifold from M (a). Proof. The ﬁrst bijection follows directly from Propositions 4.5 and 4.8. The sec- ond bijection follows from the ﬁrst by ﬁxing the exponents of formal monodromy and quotienting by the T action (using the intertwining property of νe). Proof [of Proposition 4.8]. Choose some tentacles T and a thickening γ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → P \{a , . . . , a } of each path γ (i.e. a ribbon following γ whose track |γ | is 1 m i i a closed tubular neighbourhood of the track of γ ). Let D be a disc in P containing i 0 p and disjoint from each disc D , . . ., D . Let |T | := D ∪ (D ∪ |γ |) ⊂ P 0 1 m 0 i i=1 be the union of the m + 1 discs D and the m ribbons |γ |. We will suppose (as is clearly possible) that T ,|γ |, D have been chosen such that: 1) if i 6= j then |γ | only i i intersects |γ | inside D and 2) that |T | is homeomorphic to a (closed) disc. For surjectivity, let ρ be any degree zero Stokes representation. From Proposition 3.8, specifying ρ is equivalent to specifying the matrices (C, S, Λ ) = ϕe (ρ). (Also as in Proposition 3.8, P will denote the permutation matrix associated to a via the i i tentacle choice.) Since the Stokes matrices classify germs of singular connections up ∞ i i 0 to C gauge transformations with Taylor expansion 1, germs α ∈ A (A ) may be i ﬂ obtained having any given Stokes matrices and residue for each i = 1, . . . , m (combine Theorem 3.2 with Corollary 4.4). It is straightforward to extend α arbitrarily to D . i i Next the α ’s are patched together along the ribbons |γ |. Let Φ be the canonical i 0 solution of α on Sect from Lemma 4.7. Since G = GL (C) is path connected it i 0 n is possible to choose a smooth map χ : |γ | → G such that χ = 1 on D ∩ |γ | i i 0 i i i i and χ = Φ P C on Sect ∩ |γ | for i = 1, . . . , m. Deﬁne α over |T | as follows: i 0 i i 0 −1 α| = 0 and for i = 1, . . . , m α| = α and α| = (dχ )χ . It is easy to check i |γ | i D D i 0 i i these deﬁnitions agree on the overlaps and that when the basis Φ is extended over i −1 |γ | as a solution of α then ρ(γ ) = Φ · Φ on |γ |, where Φ is the basis which pe p i 0 0 i equals 1 on D . Now we must extend α to the rest of P . First the product relation ρ · · ·ρ = 1 m 1 ensures that α has no monodromy around the boundary circle ∂|T | = S , so that any local fundamental solution Ψ extends to give a map Ψ : ∂|T | → G. Then the hypothesis that deg(ρ) = 0 ensures that this loop Ψ in G is contractible. To see this, ﬁrstly recall that the determinant map det : G → C expresses G as a ﬁbre bundle over C , with ﬁbres diﬀeomorphic to SL (C), and that SL (C) is simply n n SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 35 connected. Then, from the homotopy long exact sequence for ﬁbrations, it follows ∼ ∼ that det induces an isomorphism of fundamental groups: π (G) π (C ) Z. Thus = = 1 1 we need to see that the loop ψ := det(Ψ) : ∂|T | → C in the punctured complex plane does not wind around zero. But the winding number of ψ is I I 1 dψ 1 = Tr(α) 2πi ψ 2πi ∂|T | ∂|T | and the C version of Cauchy’s integral theorem (see Lemma 6.3) implies this is equal to Tr(Λ) = deg(ρ) (using the ﬂatness of α to deduce dTr(α) = 0). Thus the loop Ψ in G may be extended to a smooth map from the complement of 1 −1 |T | in P to G. We then deﬁne α = (dΨ)Ψ on this complement and thereby obtain α ∈ A (a) having the desired monodromy data. Hence the C monodromy map is indeed surjective. Next observe (from Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 4.7) that if h ∈ G and α = h[α] ′ i ′ i −1 then the canonical solutions of α and α are related by: Φ = h · Φ · t where t = h(a ) ∈ T . The intertwining property and the fact that the G orbits are i i 1 contained in the ﬁbres of νe are then immediate from the deﬁnition of the Stokes representation in terms of the canonical solutions The proof that the ﬁbres are precisely the G orbits is much like the proof of Proposition 3.7: Suppose α, α ∈ A (a) have the same monodromy data. Let ϕ := 1 ′ 1 −1 ′ 1 Φ ( Φ ) be the induced isomorphism between α and α on Sect . Then ϕ is single- 0 0 valued when extended to P \ {a , . . . , a } as a solution of the induced connection 1 m ′ n Hom(α, α ) on the trivial bundle End(C ). (When ϕ is extended around any loop γ 1 ′ based at p it has no monodromy since, when extended around this loop, Φ and Φ are both multiplied on the right by the same constant matrix.) Also, since the monodromy data encodes the transitions between the various canonical fundamental i ′ i −1 solutions it follows that ϕ = Φ ( Φ ) for any i, j. Now observe (from Theorem 3.1 i ′ i −1 and Lemma 4.7) that Φ ( Φ ) is asymptotic to 1 at a on some sectorial neighbour- j i i 1 hood of Sect (j = 1, . . . , r , i = 1, . . . , m). It follows that ϕ extends smoothly to P j i ′ ′ and has Taylor expansion 1 at each a . By construction α = ϕ[α] so α and α are in the same G orbit. 5. Symplectic Structure and Moment Map In this section we observe that the well known Atiyah-Bott symplectic structure on nonsingular connections naturally generalises to the singular case we have been studying. Moreover, as in the nonsingular case we ﬁnd that the curvature is a moment map for the action of the gauge group. Thus the moduli spaces of ﬂat singular connections with ﬁxed expansions arise as inﬁnite dimensional symplectic quotients. The main technical diﬃculty here is that standard Sobolev/Banach space methods cannot be used since we want to ﬁx inﬁnite-jets of derivatives at the singular points 36 PHILIP BOALCH a ∈ P . Instead the inﬁnite dimensional spaces here are naturally Fr´echet manifolds. We will not use any deep properties of Fr´echet spaces but do need a topology and diﬀerential structure. (The explicitness of our situation means we can get by without using an implicit function theorem—the monodromy description gives A (a)/G the ﬂ 1 structure of a complex manifold and local slices for this G action will be constructed directly.) The reference used for Fr´echet spaces is Treves [66] and for Fr´echet manifolds or Lie groups see Hamilton [26] and Milnor [54]; we will give direct references to these works rather than full details here. The Atiyah-Bott Symplectic Structure on A(a). Let E denote the trivial rank n 1 1 1 complex vector bundle over P and consider the complex vector space Ω [D](P , End(E)) ∞ 1 of n×n matrices of global C singular one-forms on P with poles on D (see Section 4). This is the space of sections of a C vector bundle and so can be given a Fr´echet topology in a standard way ([26] p68). Now deﬁne W to be the vector subspace dz 1 1 W := φ ∈ Ω [D](P , End(E)) L (φ) ∈ t for i = 1, . . . , m 1 1 of Ω [D](P , End(E)) of elements having Laurent expansion zero at each i, except for a possibly nonzero, diagonal residue term. This is a closed subspace and so inherits a Fr´echet topology. Lemma 5.1. The extended space A(a) of singular connections is a complex Fr´echet e e manifold and if α ∈ A(a) then the tangent space to A(a) at α is canonically isomor- e ∼ phic to the complex Fr´echet space W deﬁned above: T A(a) W. e e Proof. If all k ≥ 2 then A(a) is an aﬃne space modelled on W : If α ∈ A(a) i 0 e e then A(a) = {α + φ φ ∈ W}. In general (some k = 1), A(a) is identiﬁed in 0 i this way with an open subset of W (recall the residues must be regular mod Z): if α ∈ A(a) then the map {α + φ φ ∈ W} → t ; α 7→ Res L (α) taking the 0 0 i i i=1 residues is continuous and A(a) is the inverse image of an open subset of t . Thus A(a) is identiﬁed with an open subset of W ; it is thus a Fr´echet manifold (with just one coordinate chart) and the tangent spaces are canonically identiﬁed with W as in the ﬁnite dimensional case (see discussion [54] p1030). Thus following Atiyah-Bott [6] we can deﬁne a two-form (26) ω (φ, ψ) := Tr(φ ∧ ψ) 2πi 1 e e e on A(a), where α ∈ A(a) and φ, ψ ∈ T A(a). This integral is well deﬁned since the two-form Tr(φ ∧ ψ) on P is nonsingular; its Laurent expansion at a is a (2, 0) since the C Laurent expansion maps L are continuous (if we put the topology of simple convergence of coeﬃcients on the formal power series ring which is the image of the Laurent expansion map L ); see [66] p390, where this fact is used to prove E.Borel’s theorem on the surjectivity of L . i i SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 37 form and so zero. Thus ω is a skew-symmetric complex bilinear form on the tangent space T A(a). It is nondegenerate in the sense that if ω (φ, ψ) = 0 for all ψ then α α φ = 0 (if φ 6= 0 then φ is nonzero at some point p 6= a , . . ., a and it is easy then 1 m to construct ψ vanishing outside a neighbourhood of p and such that ω (φ, ψ) 6= 0). Also ω is continuous as a map W × W → C, since it is continuous in each factor, and (for Fr´echet spaces) such ‘separately continuous’ bilinear maps are continuous ([66] p354). Finally the right-hand side of (26) is independent of α, so ω is a constant two-form on A(a) and in particular it is closed. Owing to these properties we will say ω is a complex symplectic form on A(a). (See for example Kobayashi [42] for a discussion of the more well-known theory of symplectic Banach manifolds.) ∞ 1 Group Actions. First, the full gauge group G := GL (C (P )) is a Fr´echet Lie group; that is, it is a Fr´echet manifold such that the group operations g, h 7→ g·h and −1 ∞ g 7→ g are C maps (see [54] Example 1.3). G is locally modelled on the Fr´echet ∞ 1 space Lie(G) := C (P , gl) and has a complex analytic structure coming from the exponential map exp : Lie(G) → G; x 7→ exp(x) which is deﬁned pointwise in terms of the exponential map for G. This implies Lie(G) is a canonical coordinate chart for G in a neighbourhood of the identity since exp has a local inverse g 7→ log(g) (also deﬁned pointwise). In particular Lie(G) is so identiﬁed with the tangent space to G at the identity; the Lie algebra of G. The group we are really interested in here is G , the subgroup of G consisting of elements g ∈ G having Taylor expansion 1 at each a ∈ P . As above, the Taylor expansion maps are continuous and so G (the intersection of their kernels) is a closed subgroup of G. It follows that G is a complex Fr´echet Lie group with Lie algebra Lie(G ) := {x ∈ Lie(G) L (x) = 0 for i = 1, . . ., m} 1 i where L is the Taylor expansion map at a . (The same statements also hold for G i i T except now Lie(G ) := {x ∈ Lie(G) L (x) ∈ t for i = 1, . . ., m}.) T i Lemma 5.2. The groups G and G act holomorphically on A(a) by gauge trans- 1 T formations and the fundamental vector ﬁeld of x ∈ Lie(G ) takes the value −d x ∈ T α e e T A(a) at α ∈ A(a), where d is the singular connection on End(E) induced from α. α α −1 −1 e e Proof. First the action map G × A(a) → A(a); (g, α) 7→ gαg + (dg)g can be factored into simpler maps each of which is holomorphic (see [26]). By convention the fundamental vector ﬁeld is minus the tangent ﬁeld to the ﬂow generated by x, which may be calculated using the exponential map for G . The Curvature is a Moment Map. It is clear that the action of G on A(a) preserves the symplectic form ω: If g ∈ G and α ∈ A(a) then the derivative of the action of g is simply conjugation: −1 e e (g[·]) : T A(a) → T A(a); φ 7→ gφg . ∗ α g[α] 38 PHILIP BOALCH −1 −1 and so ω is preserved as Tr(φ ∧ ψ) = Tr(gφg ∧ gψg ) for any φ, ψ ∈ T A(a). More interestingly, this action is Hamiltonian. If we ﬁrstly look at the smaller group G , then, as observed by Atiyah and Bott in the nonsingular case, the curvature is a moment map. To start with observe: 2 1 Lemma 5.3. The curvature map F : A(a) −→ Ω (P , End(E)) is an inﬁnitely diﬀer- entiable (even holomorphic) map to the Fr´echet space of End(E) valued nonsingular two-forms on P . The derivative of F at α ∈ A(a) is 2 1 (dF) : T A(a) → Ω (P , End(E)); φ 7−→ −d φ α α α 1 1 2 1 where φ ∈ T A(a) = W and d : Ω [D](P , End(E)) → Ω [2D](P , End(E)) is the α α operator naturally induced from the singular connection α. Proof. Recall the curvature is given explicitly by F(α) = −dα + α∧ α and observe (by looking at Laurent expansions and using the division lemma) that this is a matrix of nonsingular two-forms. That F is C with the stated derivative follows from basic facts about calculus on Fr´echet spaces (see [26] Part I). 2 1 Next there is a natural inclusion from Ω (P , End(E)) to the dual of the Lie algebra of G given by taking the trace and integrating: 2 1 ∗ ι : Ω (P , End(E)) → Lie(G ) ; F(α) 7→ x 7→ Tr(F(α)x) 2πi 1 where x ∈ Lie(G ) is a matrix of functions on P . Using this inclusion we will regard F as a map into the dual of the Lie algebra of the group. We then have Proposition 5.4. The curvature F : A(a) −→ Lie(G ) is an equivariant moment map for the G action on the extended space A(a) of singular connections. Proof. Everything has been set up so that the arguments from the nonsingular case still work, as we will now show. Given x ∈ Lie(G ), deﬁne a (Hamiltonian) function H on A(a) to be the x component of F: H := hF, xi : A(a) → C; H (α) = Tr(F(α)x) x x 2πi where the angled brackets denote the natural pairing between Lie(G ) and its dual. We need to show that the fundamental vector ﬁeld of x is the Hamiltonian vector ﬁeld e e of H , i.e. that (dH ) = ω (·,−d x) as elements of T A(a). Now if φ ∈ T A(a) x x α α α α then (27) (dH ) (φ) = − Tr((d φ)x) x α α 2πi 1 from Lemma 5.3 and the chain rule. Now observe that Tr(φx) is a nonsingular one- form on P (as L (x) = 0 for all i). Therefore Stokes’ theorem implies dTr(φx) = i SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 39 Tr((d φ)x) − Tr(φ ∧ d x) integrates to zero over P . Hence (27) becomes α α (dH ) (φ) = − Tr(φ ∧ d x) = ω (φ,−d x) x α α α α 2πi proving that the curvature is indeed a moment map. The equivariance follows directly from the deﬁnition of the coadjoint action of G : If x ∈ Lie(G ) then hAd (F(α)), xi := hF(α), Ad −1(x)i = hF(g[α]), xi using the fact 1 g −1 that Tr(F(α)g xg) = Tr(F(g[α])x). Thus the subset of ﬂat connections is the preimage of zero under the moment −1 map: A (a) = F (0). Therefore, at least in a formal sense, the moduli space is −1 e e a symplectic quotient: A (a)/G = F (0)/G . (Recall A (a)/G was identiﬁed in ﬂ 1 1 ﬂ 1 Section 4 with the space M (a) of monodromy data, analogously to the non-singular case.) In the next section we will show that this prescription does deﬁne a genuine symplectic structure on at least the dense open subset of M (a) which is the image of the extended monodromy map νe. Torus Actions. To end this section we consider the action of the larger group G on the extended space of singular connections A(a). This action is also Hamiltonian: Proposition 5.5. Let µ : A(a) −→ Lie(G ) be the map given by taking the curvature together with the residue at each a : If x ∈ Lie(G ) and α ∈ A(a) i T hµ (α), xi := √ Tr (F(α)x) − Res L (Tr(αx)). i i (2π −1) 1 i=1 Then µ is an equivariant moment map for the G action on A(a). Proof. For any x ∈ Lie(G ) deﬁne the function H : A(a) → C to be the x T x component of µ : H (α) := hµ (α), xi. If φ ∈ T A(a) then x α (28) (dH ) (φ) = − √ Tr((d φ)x) − Res L (Tr(φx)). x α α i i (2π −1) 1 Our task is to show ω (φ,−d x) = (dH ) (φ). We do this by using the C Cauchy α α x α ∞ 1 integral theorem (see Lemma 6.3). Recall φ is a matrix of C one-forms on P with (at worst) ﬁrst order poles in its (1, 0) part at each a . Also x ∈ Lie(G ) is a matrix i T of functions on P and has Taylor expansion equal to a constant diagonal matrix at ∞ 1 each a . Thus for each i we can choose a C function f : P → C which vanishes i i outside D , such that Tr(φx) = θ + f dz /z + · · ·f dz /z for some nonsingular i 1 1 1 m m m 1 ∂f dz ∧dz i i i one-form θ on P . Thus dTr(φx) = dθ − and so by Stokes’ theorem and ∂z z i i Cauchy’s integral theorem: Z Z X X ∂f dz ∧ dz i i i dTr(φx) = = −(2π −1) f (a ). i i 1 ∂z z i i P D i i 40 PHILIP BOALCH (Note f (a ) = Res L (Tr(φx)).) Then the equality ω (φ,−d x) = (dH ) (φ) follows i i i i α α x α from the fact that dTr(φx) = Tr(d (φx)) = Tr((d φ)x) − Tr(φ ∧ d x). The equivari- α α α ance follows exactly as before since G /G = T is Abelian. T 1 Instead we could do the reduction in stages, and consider the T action on A (a)/G . This matches up with the Hamiltonian T actions considered in Section ﬂ 1 2, since the residues above are the exponents of formal monodromy Λ. 6. The Monodromy Map is Symplectic Most of the story so far can be summarised in the commutative diagram: f e M(a) −→ A (a)/G ﬂ 1 (29) = νe e e ∼ f f O × · · · × O //G M (a) −→ M (a). 1 m 0 The extended moduli space M (a) was deﬁned in Section 2 to be the set of iso- morphism classes of compatibly framed meromorphic connections on trivial rank n vector bundles with irregular type a. It was given an intrinsic complex symplectic structure explicitly in terms of (ﬁnite dimensional) coadjoint orbits and cotangent bundles. The extended monodromy manifold M(a) was deﬁned as the set of iso- morphism classes of Stokes representations and looks like a multiplicative version of f f M (a) (when both are described explicitly). M (a) is the degree zero component f e of M(a) and was identiﬁed with the set of G orbits in the extended space A (a) of 1 ﬂ ﬂat C singular connections. Moreover the curvature was shown to be a moment map for the action of the gauge group G on the symplectic Fr´echet manifold A(a), e f so that (formally) A (a)/G is a complex symplectic quotient. M(a) has the same ﬂ 1 deﬁnition as M (a) except with the word ‘trivial’ replaced by ‘degree zero’. The act of taking monodromy data deﬁnes both the right-hand isomorphism in the diagram and the monodromy map νe, which is a biholomorphic map onto its image (a dense open submanifold of M (a)). Basically the bottom line appears in the work [40] of Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno but m ∗ nm the symplectic structures and the rest of the diagram do not. The torus T (C ) acts on each space in (29) and these actions are intertwined by all the maps. The non-extended picture arises by taking the symplectic quotient (ﬁxing the exponents of formal monodromy and quotienting by T ). We then obtain another commutative diagram as above but with all the tildes removed and G replaced by G . 1 T In this section we show that the symplectic structure on A(a) does induce a sym- plectic structure on (at least) the dense open submanifold of M (a) that is the image 0 SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 41 of the monodromy map νe, and that this symplectic form pulls back along νe to the explicit symplectic form on M (a). In other words we will prove: Theorem 6.1. The monodromy map νe is symplectic. Analogous results have been proved in the simple pole case independently by Hitchin [29] and by Iwasaki [34, 35]. (Note that Iwasaki considers only PSL (C) Fuchsian equations, but he does so over (ﬁxed) arbitrary genus Riemann surfaces.) Factorising the Monodromy Map. Recall from Proposition 4.5 how the isomor- phism at the top of the above diagram arose: a meromorphic connection gives rise to a G orbit of C singular connections and we consider the subset with ﬁxed Lau- rent expansion at each a to deﬁne the map. In other words we can choose g ∈ G to ‘straighten’ a meromorphic connection to have ﬁxed C Laurent expansions and thereby specify an element of A (a). Here we show that this straightening proce- dure can be carried out for a family of connections all at the same time, and so the monodromy map factorises through A (a). As usual we ﬁx the data a consisting of an eﬀective divisor D = k (a ) and i i i 0 1 diagonal generic connections germs d− A . Also choose a coordinate z to identify P with C∪∞ such that each a is ﬁnite and let D , . . . , D ⊂ P be disjoint open disks i 1 m with a ∈ D , so that z := z − a is a coordinate on D . i i i i i Proposition 6.1. Let U ⊂ M (a) be an open subset. Then there exists a universal family d 1 − A of meromorphic connections on the trivial bundle over P (with com- 1 m patible framings g = ( g , . . . , g )) parameterised by u ∈ U and a family of smooth 0 0 ∞ 1 bundle automorphisms g ∈ GL (C (U × P )) such that for each u ∈ U and each i = 1, 2, . . . , m: • g(u, a ) ∈ GL (C) is the compatible framing g (u) at a speciﬁed by u ∈ U, i n 0 i 1 i 0 • The singular connection α(u) := g(u)[A(u)] on P has Laurent expansion A + i 1 i i i 0 i 0 i 0 i R(u) at a ∈ P , where R(u) = (Λ− Λ )dz/z , Λ = Res (A ) and Λ is the exponent i i i of formal monodromy of (d − A(u), g) at a , • If z ∈ P \ (D ∪ · · · ∪ D ) then g(u, z) = 1. 1 m Proof. The construction of the universal family is immediate from the proof of Proposition 2.1: Using the coordinate choices, M (a) can be identiﬁed with the −1 e e submanifold of µ (0) ⊂ O × · · ·× O which has g = 1. This subset was identiﬁed 1 m 0 as a set of matrices of meromorphic one-forms A(u) on P , together with compatible framings g. (Although we do not need this fact, it is easy to check that the family (d−A, g) of compatibly framed connections on the trivial bundle has the appropriate universal property for M (a); it is a ﬁne moduli space.) Now consider the Laurent expansion L (A) ∈ End C{z } ⊗ O(U) dz/z of A at i n i a ∈ P , where the coeﬃcients are now holomorphic functions on U. (If u ∈ U then i 42 PHILIP BOALCH L (A)(u) = L (A(u)) as elements of End (C{z })dz/z .) Recall from Lemma 3.3 that i i n i the compatible framings determine formal isomorphisms: In the relative case here this means that, for each i, there is a unique invertible matrix bg ∈ GL (C[[z ]] ⊗ O(U)) n i of formal power series with coeﬃcients in O(U) which agrees with the compatible framing at a and for each u ∈ U satisﬁes: dz i i 0 i (30) bg(u)[A(u)] = A + R(u) ∈ End C[[z ]] n i with R(u) as in the statement of the proposition. (The algorithm to construct such bg’s is as before; it works with coeﬃcients in O(U).) The crucial step is to now use E. Borel’s result that the Taylor expansion map is surjective (Theorem 4.1 above). Applying this to each matrix entry of each bg in turn i ∞ for i = 1, . . ., m gives matrices of functions g ∈ End (C (U × D )) such that for n i i i i i each u ∈ U the Taylor expansion of g at a is bg(u). Since det g(u, a ) = det g (u) is i i 0 nonzero for all u ∈ U, there is a neighbourhood of U × {a } ⊂ U × P throughout which det(g) is nonzero. It follows (as GL (C) is connected) that there is a smooth ∞ 1 i bundle automorphism g ∈ GL (C (U ×P )) that equals g in some neighbourhood of U × {a } ⊂ U × P for each i and equals 1 outside U × (D ∪· · ·∪ D ). In particular i 1 m g has the desired Taylor expansions at each a so that α = g[A] has the desired C Laurent expansions by construction. Corollary 6.2. The monodromy map νe factorises through A (a): It is possible to choose a map νb from the extended moduli space M (a) to the extended space of ﬂat singular connections determined by a such that the diagram: νb f e e M (a) −→ A (a) ֒→ A(a) /G y 1 νe f f M (a) −→ M (a) commutes and the composition i ◦ νb into the Fr´echet manifold A(a) is C . Proof. Construct g as in Proposition 6.1 with U = M (a) and then deﬁne ν(u) = g(u)[A(u)] for all u ∈ M (a). All that remains is to see that the composition i ◦ νb is C . Recall (from Lemma 5.1) that by choosing a basepoint A(a) is identiﬁed 1 1 with a Fr´echet submanifold of the Fr´echet space Ω [D](P , End(E)) of matrices of C one-forms with poles on the divisor D. Thus we must prove that the map ∗ 1 1 ∞ ∗ f f M (a) → Ω [D](P , End(E)); u 7→ α(u) := g(u)[A(u)] is C . Now if u ∈ M (a) and W ∈ T M (a) is a tangent vector at u , then we will denote the partial deriv- 0 u 0 1 1 ative of α along W by W (α) ∈ Ω [D](P , End(E)). Here we think of α as a section 0 0 ∞ ∗ 1 1 1 1 of the C vector bundle π (End (Ω [D])) over P × U (where π : P × U → P is the This statement is corrected from the published version. Thanks are due to B. Malgrange for querying this. This does not aﬀect the rest of the article. SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 43 obvious projection). This vector bundle is trivial in the U directions so the partial derivative makes sense. (Concretely, local sections are of the form h θ for C i i functions h on U and sections θ of End (Ω [D]). Then W diﬀerentiates just the i i n 0 P P h ’s: W ( h θ ) = W (h )θ .) It then follows from basic facts about calculus on i 0 i i 0 i i Fr´echet spaces that the map i ◦ ν is C and has derivative W (α) along W at u . 0 0 0 (This can be deduced from Examples 3.1.6 and 3.1.7 in [26].) Main Proof. Proof [of Theorem 6.1]. Choose g as in Corollary 6.2 above and let νb : M (a) → A (a) be the corresponding lift of the monodromy map. It is suﬃcient for us to f e prove that the composite map i ◦ νb : M (a) → A(a) is symplectic. This is because the symplectic form on M (a) is deﬁned locally as (i ◦ s) ω for any local slice 0 e A(a) f e f s : M (a) → A (a) of the G action. But, over the subset νe(M (a)), such a slice 0 ﬂ 1 −1 ∗ ∗ is given by νb ◦ νe . Thus νe ω = (i ◦ νb) ω and, if i ◦ νb is symplectic, this is f e M (a) A(a) ω . f∗ M (a) ∗ ∗ f f Now choose a point u ∈ M (a) and two tangent vectors W , W ∈ T M (a). 0 1 2 u 1 1 1 Deﬁne two matrices of singular one-forms on P , φ := W (α) ∈ End (Ω [D](P )) j j n (j = 1, 2), to be the corresponding partial derivatives of α(u) := g(u)[A(u)]. As in the proof of Corollary 6.2, φ is the derivative (i ◦ νb) (W ) of the map i ◦ νb along W . j ∗ j j Therefore what we must prove is: (31) Tr(φ ∧ φ ) = ω (W , W ). 1 2 f∗ 1 2 M (a) 2πi The ﬁrst step is to obtain a formula for the right-hand side in terms of g. This comes from Lemma 2.3 since, by construction, the ﬁrst k terms of the Taylor expansion of i i g at a give a section of the ith ‘winding map’ w. For j = 1, 2 deﬁne Λ = W (Λ) ∈ t i j j where Λ is the ith exponent of formal monodromy (which is regarded as a t-valued ∗ i i f ˙ ˙ function on M (a)). Let R := Λ dz/z and denote the derivatives of g as g˙ := j j i j ∞ 1 i W (g) ∈ End (C (P )). Then according to Lemma 2.3, if we deﬁne X ∈ g to be j n j k −1 the ﬁrst k terms in the Taylor expansion of g(u ) g˙ at a then i 0 j i i i i i i i i ˙ e ˙ e (32) ω (W , W ) = hR , X i − hR , X i + hA(u ), [X , X ]i f∗ 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 M (a) i=1 −1 i i i i i where A is the Laurent expansion of A at a and X = g (u ) · X · g (u ) ∈ g i j 0 0 j 0 0 k for j = 1, 2 and i = 1, . . . , m. Now we will calculate the left-hand side of (31). First observe that the two-form 1 ∞ i Tr(φ ∧φ ) on P is non-singular. Indeed the C Laurent expansion of φ at a is R , 1 2 j i j and so the expansion of Tr(φ ∧ φ ) is a (2, 0) form and so zero. Then the division 1 2 lemma implies Tr(φ ∧ φ ) is non-singular. 1 2 44 PHILIP BOALCH Next, by diﬀerentiating the expression g(u)[A(u)] for α along W we ﬁnd −1 −1 e e ˙ (33) φ = g(u ) · φ · g(u ) , φ := A + d g(u ) g˙ j 0 j 0 j j A(u ) 0 j for j = 1, 2, where A := W (A(u)) and g(u) = g(u,·) ∈ G. (Note that this formula j j is the basic reason why the ‘straightening’ procedure makes the Atiyah-Bott formula e e (26) non-trivial in this situation.) In particular we have Tr(φ ∧ φ ) = Tr(φ ∧ φ ). 1 2 1 2 Observe this two-form is zero outside of the disks D , since g˙ is zero there and each i j A has type (1, 0). It follows that the integral splits up into integrals over the closed disks: Z Z e e (34) Tr(φ ∧ φ ) = Tr(φ ∧ φ ). 1 2 1 2 P D i=1 We break each term in this sum into two pieces, using the deﬁnition (33) of φ : −1 e e e ˙ e Tr(φ ∧ φ ) = Tr(φ ∧ A ) + Tr φ ∧ d (g(u ) g˙ ) . Therefore by comparing 1 2 1 2 1 A(u ) 0 2 with the expression (32), the theorem now follows immediately from: 1 i i i i i e ˙ ˙ e Claim 6.1. 1) Tr(φ ∧ A ) = hA(u ), [X , X ]i − hR , X i, 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 (2π −1) D −1 i i e ˙ e 2) Tr(φ ∧ d (g(u ) g˙ )) = hR , X i. 1 A(u ) 0 2 1 2 (2π −1) i The basic tool we will use to evaluate these integrals is: Lemma 6.3. (Modiﬁed C Cauchy Integral Theorem). Let k be a nonnegative in- teger, a ∈ C a complex number and D a disk in C containing the point a. Suppose ∂f ∂f dz∧dz ∞ k ∞ f ∈ C (D ) and /(z−a) ∈ C (D ). Then is absolutely integrable a a k+1 ∂z ∂z (z−a) over D and I Z (2πi) ∂ f f(z)dz ∂f dz ∧ dz (a) = + k k+1 k+1 k! ∂z (z − a) ∂z (z − a) ∂D D a a where the line integral is taken in an anti-clockwise direction. Proof. The k = 0 case is the usual C Cauchy integral theorem, see [23] p2. Diﬀer- entiating with respect to a then gives the above result: we may reorder the integration and diﬀerentiation due to the absolute integrability. Part 1) of the claim arises as follows. Since A is a matrix of meromorphic one- (0,1) e e ˙ ˙ forms we have Tr(φ ∧ A ) = Tr(φ ∧ A ), and from (33): 1 2 2 −1 ∂(g(u ) g˙ ) (0,1) 0 1 −1 φ = ∂(g(u ) g˙ ) = dz. 0 1 ∂z Also A has a pole of order at most k at a and so we can deﬁne a smooth function 2 i i ∞ k −1 i ˙ on D , f ∈ C (D ), by the prescription fdz = (z −a ) · Tr g(u ) g˙ A on D . By i i i 0 1 2 i SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 45 taking the exterior derivative of both sides of this and dividing through by (z − a ) we deduce ∂f dz ∧ dz e ˙ Tr(φ ∧ A ) = − on D , 1 2 i ∂z (z − a ) z. Observe where the minus sign occurs since we have reversed the order of dz and d that the Taylor expansion of fdz at a has no terms containing z . Thus ∂f/∂z i i has zero Taylor expansion at a and in particular using the division lemma we see f satisﬁes the conditions in Lemma 6.3. Also f is zero on the boundary ∂D since g˙ is i 1 zero there. Therefore Cauchy’s integral theorem gives 1 1 ∂ f e ˙ (35) √ Tr(φ ∧ A ) = − (a ) with k = k − 1. 1 2 i i k! ∂z (2π −1) k −1 i ˙ This value is just −Res (fdz/(z − a ) ) = −Res (Tr g(u ) g˙ A ), where ‘residue’ i i i 0 1 2 just means taking the coeﬃcient of dz/z in the (C ) Laurent expansion. This last expression only involves the principal part of A at a and the ﬁrst k terms of the 2 i i −1 i Taylor expansion of g(u ) g˙ . By deﬁnition these ﬁrst k terms are given by X . 0 1 i 1 Also, by construction, the principal part of A at a is the same as the principal part −1 i 0 i i 0 of g(u) A + (Λ − Λ )dz/z g(u). It follows directly that −1 i i i i i ˙ ˙ PP (A ) = PP W (A(u)) = [A(u ), X ] + g (u ) · R · g (u ). i 2 i 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 Statement 1) of the claim is now immediate, upon substituting this and X into the −1 expression −Res (Tr g(u ) g˙ A ) for the integral (35). i 0 1 2 Now for part 2) of the claim. First observe that d φ = 0 as a matrix of A(u ) 1 1 −1 two-forms on P . This is equivalent to d φ = 0 (since φ = g(u ) φ g(u ) 1 1 0 1 0 α(u ) and α(u) = g(u)[A(u)]), which follows immediately by diﬀerentiating the equation d(α(u)) = α(u) ∧ α(u) for the ﬂatness of α along W . −1 −1 e e Therefore, by Leibniz Tr(φ ∧ d (g(u ) g˙ )) = −dTr(φ g(u ) g˙ ). Now, the 1 A(u ) 0 2 1 0 2 i i i ˙ ˙ Laurent expansion of φ at a is just R , so that φ = ψ + R on D for some matrix 1 i 1 1 1 1 i of non-singular one-forms ψ . Thus the integrand in 2) is −1 i −1 i −dTr(g(u ) · ψ · g˙ ) − dTr(g(u ) · R · g˙ ). 0 1 2 0 1 2 The ﬁrst term integrates to zero over the disk by Stokes’ theorem (the boundary term i i dz ˙ ˙ is zero as g˙ vanishes on ∂D ). Now from the deﬁnition R = Λ we ﬁnd that 2 i 1 1 z−a ∂f dz∧dz −1i the second term is where f := Tr(g(u ) Λ g˙ ). This smooth function f 0 1 2 ∂z z−a vanishes on ∂D and so part 2) of the claim follows using Cauchy’s integral theorem i i since f(a ) = hR , X i. This completes the proof of Theorem 6.1. i 1 2 46 PHILIP BOALCH 7. Isomonodromic Deformations and Symplectic Fibrations Now we will consider smoothly varying the data a that was previously held ﬁxed i 0 (consisting of the pole positions and the choices of generic connection germs d− A at the poles)—all that is now ﬁxed throughout is the rank n of the bundles, the number m of distinct poles and the multiplicities k , . . . , k of the poles. This leads naturally 1 m to the notion of ‘isomonodromic deformations’ of meromorphic connections. Our aim is to explain, and then prove, the following: Theorem 7.1. The Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno isomonodromic deformation equations are equivalent to a ﬂat symplectic Ehresmann connection on a symplectic ﬁbre bundle, having the moduli spaces M (a) as ﬁbre. The Betti Approach to Isomonodromy. A choice of data a determines all the ∗ ∗ f f spaces M (a), M(a),M (a) and M(a). Note however that the extended spaces ∗ i f f M (a) and M(a) only depend on the principal part of each diagonal matrix d( Q) i 0 i i 0 of meromorphic one-forms, where A = d( Q) + Λ dz /z . (cf. Remark 3.3.) Thus i i if a ∈ P it is useful to deﬁne the set X (a) of ‘order k irregular types at a’, to be the set of such principal parts. Upon choosing a local coordinate z vanishing at a we have an isomorphism n n k−2 (36) X (a) = (C \ diagonals) × (C ) j 0 obtained by taking the coeﬃcients of dz/z of the Laurent expansion in z of A , for j = k, k − 1, . . ., 2. (If k = 1 deﬁne X (a) := (point).) For the rest of this section we will change notation slightly, and let a denote 1 0 m 0 i 0 data (a , a , . . . , a , A , . . . , A ) where A ∈ X (a ) and the a are pairwise distinct 1 2 m k i i 1 ∗ f f points of P . Thus such a determines the extended spaces M (a) and M(a) (although i 0 ∗ we need to further specify exponents of formal monodromy Λ to deﬁne M (a) and M(a)). There are three manifolds of deformation parameters we will consider: Deﬁnition 7.1. • The basic manifold of deformation parameters X is simply the set of such a. • The extended manifold of deformation parameters X is the set of such a together with the choice of a k -jet of a coordinate z at each a . i i i • If z is a ﬁxed coordinate identifying P with C ∪ ∞, the Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno manifold of deformation parameters X is the set of all such a having a = ∞. JMU 1 It is easy to see these are complex manifolds, with dim(X) = dim(X ) + 1 = JMU P P dim(X) − k = m − mn + n k . There is an obvious embedding X ֒→ X i i JMU and a projection X ։ X forgetting the jets of local coordinates. Moreover using the chosen coordinate z there is an embedding X ֒→ X obtained by using the jets of JMU the coordinates z := z − a for i = 2, . . ., m and z := 1/z. X can be described i i 1 JMU SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 47 very explicitly: via (36) these coordinates identify it with m−1 n m−l n l+ (k −2) (C \ diagonals) × (C \ diagonals) × (C ) where l = #{i k = 1} is the number of simple poles. However our aim here is more to understand the intrinsic geometry of isomonodromic deformations, than seek explicitness, and so we will mainly use X and X. Now we move on to the construction of bundles over these parameter spaces. Deﬁnition 7.2. The bundle of extended moduli spaces M is the set of isomorphism classes of data (V,∇, g, a) consisting of a generic meromorphic connection ∇ (with compatible framings g) on a trivial rank n holomorphic vector bundle V over a ﬁxed copy of P such that ∇ has m poles which are labelled a , . . . , a and the order of 1 m the pole at a is k . i i It is clear from the discussion in Section 2 that a generic compatibly framed con- nection determines an irregular type at each pole and it follows that there is a natural projection M ։ X onto the manifold X of deformation parameters, taking the pole positions and the irregular types. The ﬁbre of this projection over a point a ∈ X is the extended moduli space M (a). The results of Section 2 now yield the following, which will amount to half of Theorem 7.1: Proposition 7.1. The bundle M of extended moduli spaces is a complex manifold and the projection above expresses it as a locally trivial symplectic ﬁbre bundle over X. In particular M has an intrinsic complex Poisson structure, its foliation by symplectic leaves is ﬁbrating and the space of leaves is X. Proof. The only non-trivial part left is to see that M is locally trivial as a bundle of symplectic manifolds. The decoupling lemma from Section 2 is useful here. Choose 1 1 m disjoint open disks D ⊂ P and choose a coordinate z on P which is non-singular on all the D ’s. Restrict to the open subset X of X having a ∈ D for each i. Let i i i ′ ∗ z := z − a . Now, from Proposition 2.1, over X any ﬁbre M (a) can be identiﬁed i i e e (using the coordinates z ) with a symplectic submanifold of O ×· · ·×O (e.g. as the i 1 m −1 1 ∗ subset of µ (0) which has g = 1). In turn, using Lemma 2.4, M (a) is identiﬁed (if all k ≥ 2) with the symplectic manifold ∗ m−1 1 m (T G) × O × · · · × O B B i ∗ i 0 where O is the B -coadjoint orbit through the element of b determined by A B k i 0 (on expanding A with respect to z and replacing z by ζ). Thus the dependence of i i ∗ i ∗ M (a) on a is clear: as a varies, the orbit O moves around in b . The key fact now is that B is a nilpotent Lie group: coadjoint orbits of nilpotent Lie groups are dif- feomorphic to vector spaces and admit global Darboux coordinates. Indeed M.Vergne i ∗ [71] shows how to ﬁnd dim( O ) functions on b which restrict to global Darboux i i 0 i coordinates on any O that arises as A varies ( O is always a generic orbit). Such B B 48 PHILIP BOALCH ∗ ′ coordinates immediately give a symplectic trivialisation of M over X . (If k = 1 ∗ i for some i then O is a ﬁxed symplectic submanifold of T G; there is no O factor i B to worry about.) Similarly there is a ﬁbre bundle M over X whose ﬁbres are the extended mon- f f odromy manifolds M(a). The key feature of the bundle M is that it has a canonical complete ﬂat Ehresmann connection on it—in other words there is a canonical iso- morphism between nearby ﬁbres. In essence this connection arises by ‘keeping the monodromy data constant’ so we will call it the isomonodromy connection. There is a subtlety however because it is the Stokes matrices which are held constant locally, rather than the Stokes factors: For example any anti-Stokes direction with multiplic- ity greater than one can break up into distinct anti-Stokes directions under arbitrarily small deformations of the data a, and the dimensions of the groups of Stokes factors jump accordingly (so the notion of keeping the Stokes factors constant makes no sense directly, in general). A precise description of the isomonodromy connection is as follows. Suppose a ∈ X is a choice of pole positions (a , . . ., a ) and irregular types. 1 m 1 1 Choose disjoint open discs D ⊂ P with a ∈ P , together with a coordinate on each i i disc (so directions at a can be drawn as lines on D ). If we choose a set of tentacles T i i (see Deﬁnition 3.9) then there is, from Proposition 3.8, an isomorphism ϕe : M(a) → e e C ×· · ·×C //G to the explicit monodromy manifold (which is completely independent 1 m of a). The point is that, by continuity, there is a small open neighbourhood U of a in X such that if A moves around in U , then none of the anti-Stokes directions at a cross over the base-point p ∈ D chosen as part of the tentacles. Thus using the i i maps ϕe (with T ﬁxed and A varying) we get a local trivialisation of M over U . T a Repeating this process gives an open cover of X with a choice of trivialisation of M over each patch. This describes the bundle M explicitly with clutching functions of −1 the form ϕe ◦ ϕe . Now the fact that these clutching functions are constant with 1 T respect to the parameters a ∈ X means that we have a well deﬁned ﬂat connection on M (the local horizontal sections of which have constant explicit monodromy data e e (C, S, Λ ) ∈ C × · · · × C //G). This is the isomonodromy connection. 1 m Now we want to deﬁne the relative version of the extended monodromy map. However recall from Proposition 3.10, that this requires a choices of coordinate jets. f f e Thus we ﬁrst pull both bundles M and M back to the extended manifold X of e e deformation parameters along the projection X ։ X. (These bundles over X will f f also be denoted M and M but this should not lead to confusion.) Then, using the jets of coordinates encoded in X, the ﬁbrewise monodromy maps ﬁt together to f f e deﬁne a holomorphic bundle map, νe : M → M between the bundles over X. (As before this is holomorphic since the canonical solutions depend holomorphically on parameters.) SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 49 Deﬁnition 7.3. The isomonodromy connection on M is the pull-back of the isomon- odromy connection on M along νe. See Figure 1. The point is that νe is a highly nonlinear map with respect to f f f the explicit descriptions of the bundles M and M; whilst being trivial on M, the isomonodromy connection deﬁnes interesting nonlinear diﬀerential equations on M , such as the Painlev´e or Schlesinger equations (indicated by a wavy line in the ﬁgure). f f M (a) M(a) νe f f M M e e X X Figure 1. Isomonodromic Deformations Equivalently one may view νe as a kind of nonlinear Fourier-Laplace transform (the ‘monodromy transform’), converting hard nonlinear equations on the left-hand side into trivial equations on the right. The image of νe is a subset of the degree zero component M and as before, for dimensional reasons (since it is injective and holomorphic) νe is biholomorphic onto its image. Moreover Miwa [55] has proved that −1 ∗ f f the inverse νe : M → M is meromorphic, so that local horizontal sections of the isomonodromy connection on M will develop at worst poles when extended around X: this is the Painlev´e property of the equations. In particular this implies the image of νe is the complement of a divisor in M . Note that the isomonodromy connections are equivariant under the PSL (C) ac- ∗ 1 f f tion on the bundles M , M, induced from automorphisms of P . To be precise, the isomonodromy equations of Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno are the equations for horizontal sections of the restriction of the isomonodromy connection f e on M to X ֒→ X, as we will explain in the appendix. The key idea required to JMU actually write down equations for such horizontal sections is the following recharac- terisation of the isomonodromy connection, which will also be very useful in the proof of Theorem 7.1. Remark 7.1. Observe that in the order two pole case k = 2, the B coadjoint orbit i k O in Proposition 7.1 is just a point. Thus if there are no poles of order three or more, the bundle M has a canonical symplectic trivialisation (which is not directly 50 PHILIP BOALCH related to the isomonodromy connection) and so the isomonodromy equations will be naturally identiﬁed with time-dependent ﬂows on a ﬁxed symplectic manifold. In general however, choices are needed in the use of Vergne’s theorem in Proposition 7.1, so we do not know a natural way to make such an identiﬁcation. In particular, one must ﬁnd/choose such a symplectic trivialisation before the notion of time-dependent Hamiltonians for isomonodromy even makes sense. This is a question we hope to return to in the future. (One suspects such a trivialisation arises naturally by requiring Hamiltonians to come from the logarithmic derivative of the Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno τ function.) De Rham Approach to Isomonodromy. Suppose π : Y → X is some ﬁbration over X, with manifolds Y as ﬁbres. Replacing each Y by its cohomology (Y ,C) t t t yields a vector bundle (Y,C) → X. This vector bundle has a natural ﬂat connec- Rel tion on it: the Gauss-Manin connection. One way to see this is from the homotopy invariance of cohomology: if Δ ⊂ X is an open ball then Y | is homotopy equivalent • • to any ﬁbre Y ⊂ Y | so there is a canonical isomorphism (Y ,C) (Y ,C) H = H t Δ t s for any s, t ∈ Δ. Alternatively there is a de Rham approach as follows. Given a closed diﬀerential form θ on a ﬁbre Y , choose any closed form θ on Y | extending t t Δ θ , and let θ be the restriction of θ to Y . The cohomology class of θ in (Y | ,C) is t s s Δ uniquely determined by the cohomology class of θ or of θ : this process deﬁnes the t s • • isomorphism (Y ,C) (Y ,C) over Δ. H = H t s At least for , this generalises to non-Abelian cohomology, replacing C by G = GL (C). Topologically (Y , G) = Hom(π (Y ), G)/G is the set of conjugacy classes n t 1 t of fundamental group representations. These ﬁt together into a (non-linear) ﬁbre bun- dle (Y, G) → X, which again clearly has a natural ﬂat (Ehresmann) connection on Rel it, due to the homotopy invariance of the fundamental group: the Gauss-Manin con- nection in non-Abelian cohomology. Simpson [64] refers to this as the Betti approach and studies the corresponding de Rham version. In the non-Abelian case, one-forms are replaced by connections on vector bundles, closedness is replaced by ﬂatness, and the notion of diﬀering by an exact form is replaced by gauge equivalence. Thus the de Rham version of (Y , G) is the set of isomorphism classes of ﬂat connections on H t 1 1 rank n vector bundles over Y , and the isomorphism (Y , G) = (Y , G) arises by H H t t s extending a ﬂat connection over a ﬁbre Y to a ﬂat connection over the family Y | t Δ and then restricting to Y . The main realisation now is that one can very usefully view the isomonodromy connection described above as the analogue in the meromorphic case of this non- Abelian Gauss-Manin connection. This emphasises the basic geometrical nature of isomonodromy and suggests many generalisations (we are, after all, working over P with G = GL (C)). Note however, the necessity of having explicit descriptions of the moduli spaces in order to have explicit equations: the distinction between M (a) and M(a) is important. Thus, in the de Rham approach, horizontal sections of the isomonodromy connec- f e tion on M over some ball Δ ⊂ X are related to ﬂat meromorphic connections on SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 51 vector bundles over P × Δ. This alternative approach was one of the main results of [40] (although not expressed in these terms). More precisely, in the extended case, the following holds: Theorem 7.2 (see [40]). Let Δ ⊂ X be an open ball. Then there is a canonical one to one correspondence between horizontal sections of the isomonodromy connection on M over Δ and isomorphism classes of triples (V,∇, g) consisting of ﬂat meromorphic connections ∇ on vector bundles V over P × Δ with good compatible framings g, such that for any t ∈ Δ the restriction of (V,∇, g) to the projective line P × {t} represents an element in the ﬁbre M . Sketch. See the appendix for more details, and in particular for the deﬁnition of ‘good’ compatible framings. To go from such triples (V,∇, g) to sections of M over Δ, simply restrict to the P ﬁbres. Lemma A.2 shows why the ﬂatness of ∇ implies the isomonodromicity of this family of connections over P . Conversely, suppose we have a horizontal section of the isomonodromy connection on M over Δ, or equiv- alently a compatibly framed isomonodromic family ∇ of meromorphic connections over P , parameterised by t ∈ Δ. Then for each ﬁxed t we have a canonical basis of horizontal solutions of ∇ on each sector at each pole on P ×{t}. The key idea is that as t varies, these bases (where deﬁned) vary holomorphically with t and ∇ is deﬁned by declaring all of these bases to be horizontal sections of it. The isomonodromicity of the original family implies this ∇ is well-deﬁned and ﬂat. Moreover one can deduce that ∇ is meromorphic and, by summing its principal parts, write down an algebraic expression for ∇ in terms of the original horizontal section. This leads directly to the explicit deformation equations. The non-extended version can easily be deduced from the above result, by for- getting the framings, and is closer in spirit to the non-singular (Gauss-Manin) case. First choose an m-tuple Λ of diagonal n × n matrices. Then deﬁne bundles M (Λ) and M(Λ) over the space X of deformation parameters, by restricting the bundles f f M → X and M → X to the subsets which have exponents of formal monodromy m ∗ nm Λ and quotienting by the action of T = (C ) . The isomonodromy connection on M descends to induce a canonical isomorphism between nearby ﬁbres of M(Λ) → X, and in turn we obtain a well-deﬁned notion of local horizontal sections of the isomon- odromy connection on M (Λ) → X. Immediately we obtain the following (see Mal- grange [45, 46] for some global statements along these lines): Corollary 7.2. Horizontal sections of the isomonodromy connection on M (Λ) over Δ ⊂ X correspond canonically to isomorphism classes of pairs (V,∇) consisting of ﬂat meromorphic connections ∇ on vector bundles V over P × Δ, such that for any t ∈ Δ the restriction of (V,∇) to the projective line P × {t} represents an element in the ﬁbre M (Λ) . t 52 PHILIP BOALCH Isomonodromic Deformations are Symplectic. Now we will establish the second part of Theorem 7.1, thereby revealing the symplectic nature of the full family of Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno isomonodromic deformation equations: f e Theorem 7.3. The isomonodromy connection on the bundle M → X of extended moduli spaces, is a symplectic connection. In other words, the local analytic diﬀeo- morphisms induced by the isomonodromy connection between the ﬁbres of M are symplectic diﬀeomorphisms. Proof. We will show that arbitrary, small, isomonodromic deformations induce sym- f e plectomorphisms. Let u be any point of M and let x be the image of u in X. 0 0 0 Let γ be any holomorphic map from the open unit disk D ⊂ C into X such that γ(0) = x . For t ∈ D, let M denote the (symplectic) extended moduli space which is the ﬁbre of M over γ(t). The standard vector ﬁeld ∂/∂t on D gives a vector ﬁeld e f on γ(D) ⊂ X which we lift to a vector ﬁeld V on M | , transverse to the ﬁbres γ(D) M , using the isomonodromy connection. This lifted vector ﬁeld may be integrated throughout a neighbourhood of u in M | . Concretely, this means that there is a 0 γ(D) contractible neighbourhood U of u in M , a neighbourhood Δ ⊂ D of 0 in C and a holomorphic map F : U × Δ → M | such that for all u ∈ U and t ∈ Δ: γ(Δ) ∂F ∗ ∗ f f F (u, t) ∈ M , F (u, 0) = u ∈ M and (u, t) = V . F (u,t) t 0 ∂t In particular for each t ∈ Δ we have a symplectic form ω := (F| ) (ω ) on U, where t t f ω is the symplectic form deﬁned on the extended moduli space M in Section 2 f∗ and F| = F (·, t) : U → M . Now, given any two tangent vectors W , W to U at t 1 2 u , it is suﬃcient for us to show that the function ω (W , W ) of t is constant in some 0 t 1 2 neighbourhood of 0 ∈ Δ. First, as in Proposition 6.1 it is easy to construct a local universal family over the image of F in M . Pulling back along F yields a family of meromorphic connections on the trivial bundle over P parameterised by U × Δ. For each ﬁxed u ∈ U we get an isomonodromic family parameterised by Δ, that is, a ‘vertical’ meromorphic 1 1 connection on the trivial bundle over Δ × P (where P is the vertical direction), such that each connection on P has the ‘same’ monodromy data. The result of Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno (Theorem 7.2 above) then tells us how to extend this vertical connection to a full ﬂat connection over Δ × P . From the algebraic formula (41) for this extension it is clear that this process behaves well as we vary u ∈ U: for each u ∈ U we obtain a ﬂat meromorphic connection, which we will denote ∇ , on the trivial bundle over Δ × P , that depends holomorphically on u. The poles of ∇ will be denoted by a (t), . . ., a (t) and the polar divisor in Δ × P of ∇ by D = k Δ 1 m u i i (these are all independent of u ∈ U). Shrinking Δ if necessary, choose disjoint open discs D in P such that a (t) ∈ D for all t ∈ Δ. For each i let z : D × Δ → C be i i i i i SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 53 a function which, for each ﬁxed t ∈ Δ is a coordinate on D , vanishing at a (t) and i i having the k -jet at a (t) as speciﬁed by the point of the base X below γ(t). i i The next step is to push everything over to the C picture where the symplectic forms are expressed simply as integrals. To do this we choose a smooth bundle ∞ 1 automorphism: g ∈ GL C (U × Δ × P ) which ‘straightens’ the whole family of connections ∇ at the same time, as in Section 6. The map F into M speciﬁes a family of good compatible framings g : U × Δ → GL (C) of ∇ along Δ for each 0 i n u i i 0 i i and all u ∈ U. Use the coordinate z to deﬁne uniquely a family A := d 1( Q) of i P diagonal matrices of meromorphic one-forms on D , parameterised by U × Δ. (Recall only the principal part of Q is speciﬁed by X: declare the other terms are zero in its Laurent expansion with respect to z .) As in Proposition 6.1 the framings extend uniquely to formal isomorphisms bg ∈ GL C[[z ]] ⊗ O(U × Δ ) to (uniquely n i i i i 1 1 1 determined) diagonal connections d −d ( Q)− Λ(u)d z /z . By deﬁnition, that the i i P P P framings are good, means bg satisﬁes a stronger condition: it transforms the Laurent expansion of ∇ along Δ into a standard full connection associated to the normal u i forms for each u: d(z ) i i i (37) bg[L (∇ )] = d − d(Q(t)) − Λ(u) , i u 1 1 where d denotes the exterior derivative on the product Δ × P , rather than just P . The automorphism g is now constructed using Borel’s theorem, as in Proposition 6.1 to have Taylor expansion at a (t) equal to g for all t ∈ Δ and for all u ∈ U. Thus we can use g to straighten the whole family ∇ at the same time. Deﬁne ∞ 1 two families of C singular connections. First a family ∇ := g[∇ ] on Δ × P u u parameterised by U, and second d = d 1 − α := ∇ | 1 on P parameterised by α P u P U × Δ. By construction the C Laurent expansion of ∇ at a is given by (37). u i It follows, for all u ∈ U and t ∈ Δ, that d is an element of the extended space i 0 e e A (a ) ⊂ A(a ) of ﬂat singular connections associated to a := {A }. ﬂ t t t Now diﬀerentiate ∇ and d with respect to u along both W and W at u = u . De- u α 1 2 0 ﬁne these derivatives to be Ψ := W (∇ ) and ψ := W (d ) = Ψ | respectively, for j j u j j α j j = 1, 2. Each Ψ is a matrix of singular one-forms on Δ×P and each ψ is a matrix j j of singular one-forms on P parameterised by Δ. Clearly Tr(ψ ∧ψ ) = Tr(Ψ ∧Ψ )| 1. 1 2 1 2 P Also since the Laurent expansion of ∇ is given by (37) at each a we can deduce u i what the Laurent expansions of Ψ and Ψ are: L (Ψ ) = W (Λ(u))d 1(z )/z for 1 2 i j j Δ×P i i j = 1, 2 and i = 1, . . . , m. It follows that Tr(Ψ ∧ Ψ ) is a nonsingular two-form on 1 2 Δ × P since L (Ψ ∧ Ψ ) = L (Ψ ) ∧ L (Ψ ) = 0 for each i. i 1 2 i 1 i 2 Now observe that for each u ∈ U the ﬂatness of ∇ implies the ﬂatness of ∇ . By u u e e diﬀerentiating the equation ∇ ◦ ∇ = 0 with respect to u along W and W we ﬁnd u u 1 2 e e ∇ Ψ = 0 and ∇ Ψ = 0. In particular, by Leibniz, the two-form Tr(Ψ ∧ Ψ ) on u 1 u 2 1 2 0 0 Δ × P is closed. 54 PHILIP BOALCH Thus if we do the ﬁbre integral over P we obtain a zero-form on Δ (i.e. a function of t): Z Z Tr(Ψ ∧ Ψ ) = Tr(ψ ∧ ψ ). 1 2 1 2 1 1 P P This is a closed 0-form (i.e. a constant function) since integration over the ﬁbre commutes with exterior diﬀerentiation. See for example Bott and Tu [16] Proposition 6.14.1 (it is important here that Tr(Ψ ∧ Ψ ) is nonsingular). 1 2 Finally we appeal to Theorem 6.1 to see that for all t ∈ Δ: Tr(ψ ∧ ψ ) = ω (W , W ) 1 2 t 1 2 2πi 1 and so the symplectic form is indeed independent of t. Closing Remarks. One upshot of Theorem 7.1 is that the symplectic structure on each monodromy manifold is independent of the choice of deformation parameters; the isomonodromy connection on M is symplectic. This is the generalisation of the ‘symplectic nature of the fundamental group’. As in the non-singular case, one then wonders if there is an intrinsic ﬁnite-dimensional/algebraic approach to this symplec- tic structure (generalising the cup product in group cohomology). This should be possible by combining the C approach here with the ideas of Alekseev, Malkin and Meinrenken [3]. Alternatively (or perhaps equivalently) a direct connection between Stokes matrices and Poisson Lie groups was observed in [14], which we will brieﬂy sketch here since it is quite intriguing. Consider the case of connections on P with just two poles, of orders one and two respectively. The choice of an irregular type at the order two f f pole determines the moduli space M (a) and the monodromy manifold M(a). If we forget the framing at the order one pole, we obtain M (a)/T which is isomorphic as a Poisson manifold to (a covering of a dense open subset of) g . Also M(a)/T is isomorphic to a covering of a dense open subset of U ×U × t. The monodromy map + − extends to a map ν : g → U × U × t, taking the Stokes matrices and the exponent + − 2 ∗ of formal monodromy at 0 of the connection d−(Udz/z +V dz/z), where V ∈ g g and U is a ﬁxed diagonal matrix with distinct eigenvalues. The basic observation now is that U × U × t may be identiﬁed with the simply connected Poisson Lie group + − ∗ ∗ ∗ G dual to GL (C). We then claim that, under such identiﬁcation, ν : g → G is ∗ ∗ a Poisson map, where g and G both have their standard Poisson structures. In particular, taking V to be skew-symmetric, this claim yields a new approach to the Poisson bracket on Dubrovin’s local moduli space of semisimple Frobenius manifolds. This has now been proved, cf. P.P.Boalch, math.DG/0011062 SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 55 Appendix A. We will give more details regarding Theorem 7.2, relating ﬂat connections to hor- izontal sections of the isomonodromy connection. This diﬀers from [40] in that the coordinate dependence is isolated here. At the end we will write down the deformation equations. First some generalities on the local structure of meromorphic connections in higher dimensions. The local model is of a meromorphic connection ∇ = d − A on the trivial rank n vector bundle over a product D × Δ of the unit disc D ⊂ C and some contractible space of parameters Δ. We suppose, for each t ∈ Δ that the restriction ∇ := ∇| to the corresponding disc has only one pole (of order k) at some t D×{t} point a(t) ∈ D and is formally equivalent to a generic diagonal connection d − A (t) depending holomorphically on t. Assume the divisor Δ := {(a(t), t)} ⊂ D × Δ is smooth. Let z : D × Δ → C be any holomorphic function vanishing on Δ which 0 0 restricts to a coordinate on D × {t} for each t ∈ Δ (only the k-jet of the Taylor 0 0 expansion of z along Δ will be signiﬁcant below). Write A = d Q + Λ (t)d z /z , 0 0 D D 0 0 0 0 e e as usual and deﬁne the ‘standard full connection’ to be d − A where A := dQ + Λ (t)d(z )/z and d denotes the full exterior derivative on D × Δ. 0 0 If we choose a compatible framing g of ∇ along Δ then, as in Proposition 6.1, 0 0 there is a unique family of formal isomorphisms bg ∈ GL (C[[z ]] ⊗ O(Δ )) satisfying n 0 0 bg| = g and bg [∇ ] = d − A for each ﬁxed t (after possibly permuting the entries Δ 0 t t D of A ). The basic structural result is then: Lemma A.1 (see [46]). If ∇ is ﬂat then Λ is constant and there is a diagonal matrix valued holomorphic function F ∈ End (O(Δ )) (which is unique upto the addition of n 0 a constant diagonal matrix) such that 0 ∗ bg[∇] = d − (A + π (d F )) D×Δ Δ where π : D × Δ → Δ is the projection along the D direction. Proof. Let d − B be the Δ component of the Laurent expansion of gb[∇] so Δ 0 D×Δ that gb[∇] = d − (A + B). This is ﬂat because ∇ is. The (D-Δ ) part of the D×Δ D×Δ 0 equation for this ﬂatness is: 0 0 0 (38) d B + d A = A ∧ B + B ∧ A . D Δ Since A is diagonal this equation splits into two independent pieces, the diagonal od part and the oﬀ-diagonal part. First we deduce that the oﬀ-diagonal part B of B od od r 1 is zero: Suppose B 6= 0 and let M/z be its leading term, M ∈ End (Ω (Δ )). 0 n hol od 0 od od 0 Equation (38) implies d B = A ∧ B + B ∧ A . Counting the pole orders we od 0 0 deduce B = 0 unless k = 1. If k = 1, say A = A dz /z , then considering co- 0 0 r+1 eﬃcients of dz /z we see (−r)M = [A , M] which implies M = 0 (and therefore 0 1 od 0 0 B = 0) since A is generic; the diﬀerence between any two eigenvalues of A is 38) now reads d B + d A = 0. never the integer −r. Thus B is diagonal, and so ( D Δ 0 0 This implies d Λ (t) = 0 since d B will have no residue term, and so A is ﬂat. Δ D 0 56 PHILIP BOALCH 0 0 0 e e e Thus d B = −d A = d A . Hence B = A + φ(t) for some diagonal matrix of D Δ D 0 Δ 1 0 0 e e one-forms φ ∈ End (Ω (Δ )) where A is the Δ component of A . Finally the n 0 0 hol Δ (Δ -Δ ) part of the equation for the ﬂatness of d − A − B implies d B = 0. It fol- 0 0 Δ lows that d (φ(t)) = 0 and so, since Δ is contractible, φ = d F for some diagonal Δ 0 Δ 0 0 F ∈ End (O(Δ )) n 0 This leads us to make the following: Deﬁnition A.1. If ∇ is ﬂat then a compatible framing g of ∇ along Δ is good if 0 0 bg[∇] = d − A where bg is the formal series associated to g . D×Δ 0 −F Thus an arbitrary compatible framing g can be made good by replacing it by e g 0 0 where F is from Lemma A.1. It is worth saying the same thing slightly diﬀerently. In −1 the convention we are using, the columns of the inverse g of the compatible framing are a basis of sections of V | , where V is the bundle that ∇ is on. Thus, since good compatible framings are determined upto a constant, there is a ﬂat holomorphic −1 connection ∇ on V | whose horizontal sections are the columns of g for any good 0 Δ 0 0 compatible framing g . A direct deﬁnition is: Deﬁnition A.2. If g is any compatible framing of ∇ along Δ then the induced 0 0 −1 0 connection along Δ is ∇ = (∇ + g · A · g) , where g is the formal series b b b 0 0 associated to g . It is easy to check this deﬁnition is independent of the choice of compatible framing −1 and, if g is good, then the columns of g are horizontal. Moreover this deﬁnition makes sense for non-ﬂat ∇, but then ∇ may not be ﬂat. One may also check that ∇ 0 0 only depends on ∇ and the choice of k-jets of coordinates z . (Also in the logarithmic case k = 1, ∇ coincides with the usual (canonical) notion of induced connection ∇| , provided z satisﬁes (dz /z )| = 0.) Thus one can alternatively deﬁne good Δ 0 0 0 Δ 0 0 −1 framings to be the compatible framings g such that the columns of g are horizontal for ∇ . The reason for restricting how the framings vary along Δ is the following: 0 0 40] Theorem 3.3). Let ∇ be a full ﬂat connection as above and Lemma A.2 (see [ let g be a good compatible framing with corresponding formal series bg. Fix any point t ∈ Δ, choose a labelling of the sectors between the anti-Stokes directions at a(t ) ∈ D×{t }, and choose log(z ) branches on D×{t }. Let Δ be a neighbourhood 0 0 0 0 of t ∈ Δ such that the last sector at a(t ) deforms into a unique sector at a(t) for 0 0 all t ∈ Δ (the last sector at a(t)). −1 Λ Q Then the canonical fundamental solution Φ := Σ (bg )z e of ∇| on the 0 0 Vert last sector at a(t) ∈ D × {t} varies holomorphically with t ∈ Δ and Φ (z, t) is a local fundamental solution of the original full connection ∇. (Similarly on the other sectors: just relabel.) e e e Proof. Write ∇ = d−A and let Ω be the Δ component of A so that A = A+Ω. The −1 0 aim is to show that d Φ = ΩΦ . From the deﬁnition of bg we have A+Ω = bg [A ] Δ 0 0 D×Δ SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 57 −1 0 −1 and this has Δ component Ω = bg ·A ·bg−bg d gb. Now the key observation is that the equation d A = −d Ω+A∧Ω+Ω∧A (from the ﬂatness of ∇) implies that the matrix Δ D of one-forms d Φ −ΩΦ satisﬁes the equation d (d Φ −ΩΦ ) = A(d Φ −ΩΦ ) (also Δ 0 0 D Δ 0 0 Δ 0 0 −1 using the fact that d Φ = AΦ ). Then if we deﬁne a matrix K := Φ (d Φ − ΩΦ ) D 0 0 Δ 0 0 of one-forms it follows that d K = 0 so that K is constant in the D direction. Then us- −1 Λ Q ing the fact that the asymptotic expansion of Φ in the last sector at a(t) is bg z e , it follows that K has zero asymptotic expansion there. (This uses the fact that the asymptotic expansions are uniform in t to see that d commutes with the operation of taking the asymptotic expansion.) It follows immediately that K = 0 because K is constant in the D direction, and so d Φ = ΩΦ . Δ 0 0 This is the main result needed to prove Theorem 7.2 as sketched. All that remains is to write down the deformation equations of Jimbo, Miwa and Ueno. Restrict e f the parameter space to X ֒→ X. The bundle M over X can be decribed JMU JMU explicitly: using Proposition 2.1 (and removing the G action by ﬁxing g = 1) it is identiﬁed as a subbundle of the trivial bundle over X with ﬁbre JMU ∗ ∗ (GL (C) × g ) × · · · × (GL (C) × g ). n n k k 1 m When described in this way the bundle M → X is identiﬁed as the ‘manifold JMU of singularity data’ of [40]. Now suppose we have a horizontal section of the isomon- odromy connection on M over some ball Δ ֒→ X . From Section 2 this determines JMU a family of meromorphic connections d − A on the trivial bundle over P and com- i ∗ patible framings g (the principal parts of A lie in the g ’s using the coordinate choices). As above we also get (algebraically) formal isomorphisms bg, connection i 0 i 0 germs d 1 − A and ‘full’ connection germs d 1 − A , where d is the full exterior P P ×Δ 1 i 0 derivative on P × Δ. (The holomorphic terms in the expansion of A with respect to z are deﬁned to be zero.) From the sketch of the proof of Theorem 7.2, d 1 − A is the vertical component of −1 e e a full connection ∇ = d−A, where A = (dΦ)Φ for any local canonical fundamental i i i i −1 Λ solution Φ(z, t) := Σ ( bg )z e on (say) the jth sector at the ith pole. These local deﬁnitions agree as the family d 1 − A is isomonodromic. Let Ω denote the Δ e e component of A, so A = A + Ω. From the deﬁnition we know the asymptotics of Φ(z, t) (uniformly) on the jth (super)sector at the ith pole and so we can deduce the asymptotics of Ω: −1 −1 i i 0 i i i (39) (Ω) = gb · A · bg − bg · d ( bg) i Δ A priori this only holds on some sector at the ith pole, but choosing a diﬀerent Φ, we get the same expansion on every sector. It follows that Ω is meromorphic, with Laurent expansion (39). First, it follows immediately from this expression that the compatible framing g is a good compatible framing of ∇. Secondly it is clear that −1 i i 0 i the ith principal part of Ω is the principal part of bg · A · bg and so is determined algebraically. Also we need a formula for the induced connections ∇ on the polar i 58 PHILIP BOALCH divisors of ∇. Upon pulling ∇ down to the base Δ, from Deﬁnition A.2, one ﬁnds that ∇ becomes d − Θ where i Δ i −1 i −1 i i i 0 i (40) Θ = g (d a )g + Const ( bg · A · bg) − Const (Ω) i Δ i 1 z z 0 i Δ i i i i 2 with bg = g + g ·z +O(z ) and where Const takes the constant term in the Laurent 0 1 i z i i expansion with respect to z . Since we are working in the trivialisation determined by the ﬁrst framing ( g = 1), we have Θ = 0 and so the expression (40) determines 0 1 the constant term in the expansion of Ω at a = ∞. Thus Ω is completely determined by this constant and the principal parts: −1 −1 1 1 0 1 i i 0 i e e (41) Ω = Const ( bg · A · bg) + PP gb · A · bg . z z 1 Δ i Δ i=1 Now the ﬂatness of the full connection ∇ over Δ × P implies two equations. Firstly d Ω = Ω∧Ω, which says that Ω is a family of ﬂat connections on Δ depending rationally on the ‘spectral parameter’ z; a situation that often arises in soliton theory. Secondly (42) d A = −d Ω + A ∧ Ω + Ω ∧ A. Also the ‘goodness’ of the compatible framings g implies that i i (43) d (g ) = −(g )Θ . Δ 0 0 i Note that the formulae (40) and (41) for Ω and Θ make sense for an arbitrary sec- tion of the bundle M so that the equations (42) and (43) amount to a coupled system 1 m of nonlinear algebraic diﬀerential equations for horizontal sections s = (g, A, . . . , A) of the isomonodromy connection on M over X : They are the Jimbo-Miwa-Ueno JMU isomonodromic deformation equations [40]. A number of examples are given in [38, 40] and in particular the cases of the Schlesinger equations and the six Painlev´e equations are explained. Acknowledgments. The results of this paper were announced at the 1998 ICM in Berlin and appeared in my Oxford D.Phil. thesis [14], which was supported by an E.P.S.R.C. grant. I would like to thank my D.Phil. supervisor Nigel Hitchin for the guidance and inspiration provided throughout this project, Boris Dubrovin whose work introduced me to the geom- etry of Stokes matrices, and Hermann Flaschka whose lectures at the 1996 isomonodromy conference in Luminy helped germinate the idea that the main results of this paper might be true. Many other mathematicians have also inﬂuenced this work through helpful com- ments, and I am grateful to them all, especially Mich`ele Audin, John Harnad, Alastair King, Mich`ele Loday-Richaud, Eyal Markman, Nitin Nitsure, Claude Sabbah, Graeme Segal and Nick Woodhouse. References 1. M. J. Ablowitz and P. A. Clarkson. Solitons, nonlinear evolution equations and inverse scatter- ing. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1991. SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 59 2. M.R. Adams, J. Harnad, and J. Hurtubise. Isospectral Hamiltonian ﬂows in ﬁnite and inﬁnite dimensions, II. Integration of the ﬂows. Comm. Math. Phys., 134:555–585, 1990. 3. A. Alekseev, A. Malkin, and E. Meinrenken. Lie group valued moment maps. J. Diﬀerential Geom., 48(3):445–495, 1998. dg-ga/9707021. 4. J. E. Andersen, J. Mattes, and N. Reshetikhin. The Poisson structure on the moduli space of ﬂat connections and chord diagrams. Topology, 35(4):1069–1083, 1996. 5. M.F. Atiyah. The geometry and physics of knots. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1990. 6. M.F. Atiyah and R. Bott. The Yang-Mills equations over Riemann surfaces. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London, 308:523–615, 1982. 7. M. Audin. Lectures on integrable systems and gauge theory. In Hurtubise and Lalonde [33]. 8. D.G. Babbitt and V.S. Varadarajan. Formal reduction theory of meromorphic diﬀerential equa- tions: a group theoretic view. Paciﬁc J. Math., 109(1):1–80, 1983. 9. D.G. Babbitt and V.S. Varadarajan. Local moduli for meromorphic diﬀerential equations. Ast´erisque, 169-170:1–217, 1989. 10. W. Balser, B.J.L. Braaksma, J.P. Ramis, and Y. Sibuya. Multisummability of formal power series solutions of linear ordinary diﬀerential equations. Asymptotic Analysis, 2:27–45, 1991. 11. W. Balser, W.B. Jurkat, and D.A. Lutz. Birkhoﬀ invariants and Stokes’ multipliers for mero- morphic linear diﬀerential equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 71:48–94, 1979. 12. A. Beauville. Jacobiennes des courbes spectrales et syst´emes Hamiltoniens completement int´egrables. Acta Math., 164:211–235, 1990. 13. I. Biswas and K. Guruprasad. Principal bundles on open surfaces and invariant functions on Lie groups. Internat. J. Math., 4(4):535–544, 1993. 14. P.P. Boalch. Symplectic geometry and isomonodromic deformations. D.Phil. thesis, Oxford Uni- versity, 1999. 15. A. Borel. Linear algebraic groups. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1991. 16. R. Bott and L. W. Tu. Diﬀerential forms in algebraic topology, volume 82 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer Verlag, second edition, 1995. 17. L. Boutet de Monvel, A. Douady, and J.-L. Verdier, editors. S´eminaire E.N.S. Math´ematique et Physique, volume 37 of Progress in Math., Boston, 1983. Birkh¨auser. 18. R. Donagi and E. Markman. Spectral covers, algebraically integrable Hamiltonian systems and moduli of bundles. In M.Francaviglia and S.Greco [53], pages 1–119. 19. B. Dubrovin. Geometry of 2D topological ﬁeld theories. In M.Francaviglia and S.Greco [53], pages 120–348. 20. L. D. Faddeev and L. A. Takhtajan. Hamiltonian methods in the theory of solitons. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1987. 21. V.V. Fock and A.A. Rosly. Flat connections and Polyubles. Teor. Mat. Fiz., 95(2):228–238, 22. W.M. Goldman. The symplectic nature of fundamental groups of surfaces. Adv. in Math., 54:200– 225, 1984. 23. P. Griﬃths and J. Harris. Principles of algebraic geometry. Wiley Interscience, New York, 1994. 24. V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg. Symplectic techniques in physics. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1984. 25. K. Guruprasad, J. Huebschmann, L. Jeﬀrey, and A. Weinstein. Group systems, groupoids and moduli spaces of parabolic bundles. Duke Math. J., 89(2):377–412, 1997. dg-ga/9510006. 26. R.S. Hamilton. The inverse function theorem of Nash and Moser. Bull. A.M.S. (New Series), 7(1):65–222, July 1982. 27. J. Harnad. Quantum isomonodromic deformations and the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations. In Symmetries and integrability of diﬀerence equations (Est´erel, PQ, 1994), pages 155–161. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1996. 28. J. Harnad and M.A. Wisse. Loop algebra moment maps and Hamiltonian models for the Painlev´e transcendants. Fields Inst. Commun., 7:155–169, 1993. hep-th/9305027. 29. N.J. Hitchin. Frobenius manifolds (notes by D. Calderbank). In Hurtubise and Lalonde [33]. 30. N.J. Hitchin. Twistor spaces, Einstein metrics and isomonodromic deformations. J. Diﬀerential Geom., 42(1):30–112, 1995. 60 PHILIP BOALCH 31. L. Ho¨rmander. The analysis of linear partial diﬀerential operators. I. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983. Distribution theory and Fourier analysis. 32. P. Hsieh and Y. Sibuya. Note on regular perturbations of linear ordinary diﬀerential equations at irregular singular points. Funkcial. Ekvac., 8:99–108, 1966. 33. J. Hurtubise and F. Lalonde, editors. Gauge Theory and Symplectic Geometry, volume 488 of NATO ASI Series C: Maths & Phys. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995. 34. K. Iwasaki. Moduli and deformation for Fuchsian projective connections on a Riemann surface. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Sect. 1A, Math., 38:431–531, 1991. 35. K. Iwasaki. Fuchsian moduli on a Riemann surface- its Poisson structure and Poincar´e Lefschetz duality. Paciﬁc J. Math., 155(2):319–340, 1992. 36. K. Iwasaki, H. Kimura, S. Shimomura, and M. Yoshida. From Gauss to Painlev´e a modern theory of special functions. Aspects of mathematics. Vieweg, 1991. 37. L. Jeﬀrey. Extended moduli spaces of ﬂat connections on Riemann surfaces. Math. Ann., 298:667–692, 1994. 38. M. Jimbo and T. Miwa. Monodromy preserving deformations of linear diﬀerential equations with rational coeﬃcients II. Physica 2D, pages 407–448, 1981. 39. M. Jimbo, T. Miwa, Y. Moˆri, and M. Sato. Density matrix of an impenetrable Bose gas and the ﬁfth Painlev´e transcendant. Physica 1D, pages 80–158, 1980. 40. M. Jimbo, T. Miwa, and Kimio Ueno. Monodromy preserving deformations of linear diﬀerential equations with rational coeﬃcients I. Physica 2D, pages 306–352, 1981. 41. Y. Karshon. An algebraic proof for the symplectic structure of moduli space. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 116(3):591–605, 1992. 42. S. Kobayashi. Diﬀerential geometry of complex vector bundles. Number 5 in Kanˆo Memorial Lectures. Iwanami Shoten/Princeton University Press, 1987. 43. M. Loday-Richaud. Stokes phenomenon, multisummability and diﬀerential Galois groups. Ann. Inst. Fourier, 44(3):849–906, 1994. 44. B. Malgrange. Ideals of diﬀerentiable functions. TATA Institute of Fundamental Research, Bom- bay/Oxford University Press, 1966. 45. B. Malgrange. Sur les deformations isomonodromiques. I. singularites regulieres. In Boutet de Monvel et al. [17], pages 401–426. 46. B. Malgrange. Sur les deformations isomonodromiques. II. singularites irregulieres. In Boutet de Monvel et al. [17], pages 427–438. 47. B. Malgrange. Sommation des series divergentes. Exposition. Math., 13:163–222, 1995. 48. B. Malgrange and J.-P. Ramis. Fonctions multisommables. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 42(1- 2):353–368, 1992. 49. J. Martinet. Singularities of smooth functions and maps. C.U.P., Cambridge, 1982. 50. J. Martinet and J.P. Ramis. Elementary acceleration and multisummability. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´e, Physique Th´eorique, 54(4):331–401, 1991. 51. L.J. Mason and N.M.J. Woodhouse. Integrability, Self-Duality and Twistor Theory. O.U.P., Oxford, 1996. 52. B.M. McCoy, C.A. Tracy, and T.T. Wu. Painlev´e functions of the third kind. J. Math. Phys., 18(5):1058–1092, May 1977. 53. M.Francaviglia and S.Greco, editors. Integrable Systems and Quantum Groups, volume 1620 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 1995. 54. J. Milnor. Remarks on inﬁnite-dimensional Lie groups. In Relativity, groups and topology, II (Les Houches, 1983), pages 1007–1057. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984. 55. T. Miwa. Painlev´e property of monodromy preserving deformation equations and the analyticity of τ functions. Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ., 17:703–721, 1981. 56. M.S. Narasimhan and C.S. Seshadri. Stable and unitary vector bundles on a compact Riemann surface. Ann. of Math., 82:540–567, 1965. 57. K. Okamoto. On the τ function of the Painlev´e equations. Physica 2D, pages 525–535, 1981. 58. R.M. Range. Holomorphic Functions and Integral Representations in Several Complex Variables, volume 108 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 1986. SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS AND ISOMONODROMIC DEFORMATIONS 61 59. N. Reshetikhin. The Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov system as a deformation of the isomonodromy problem. Lett. Math. Phys., 26(3):167–177, 1992. 60. M. Sato, T. Miwa, and M. Jimbo. Holonomic quantum ﬁelds I-V. Publ. RIMS Kyoto Univ., 14,15,15,15,16:223–267,201–278,577–629,871–972,531–584, 1978,1979,1979,1979,1980. resp. 61. L. Schlesinger. Uber eine Klasse von Diﬀerentialsystemen beliebiger Ordnung mit feten kritischen Punkten. J. fu¨r Math., 141:96–145, 1912. 62. Y. Sibuya. Simpliﬁcation of a system of linear ordinary diﬀerential equations about a singular point. Funkcial. Ekvac., 4:29–56, 1962. 63. Y. Sibuya. Perturbation of linear ordinary diﬀerential equations at irregular singular points. Funkcial. Ekvac., 11:235–246, 1968. 64. C.T. Simpson. Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety, I, II. Publ. Math. I.H.E.S., 79, 80:47–129, 5–79, 1994. 65. K. P. Tod. Self-dual Einstein metrics from the Painlev´e VI equation. Phys. Lett. A, 190(3-4):221– 224, 1994. 66. F. Treves. Topological vector spaces, distributions and kernels. Number 25 in Pure and Applied Mathematics Monographs. Acadamic Press, New York, London, 1967. 67. M. Ugaglia. On a Poisson structure on the space of Stokes matrices. Internat. Math. Res. Notices, 9:473–493, 1999. math.AG/9902045. 68. H. Umemura. Irreducibility of Painlev´e transcendental functions. Sugaku Expositions, 2(2):231– 252, 1989. 69. H. Umemura. Painlev´e equations and classical functions. Sugaku Expositions, 11(1):77–100, 1998. 70. V.S. Varadarajan. Linear meromorphic diﬀerential equations: a modern point of view. Bull. AMS, 33(1):1–42, Jan. 1996. 71. M. Vergne. La structure de Poisson sur l’alg`ebre sym´etrique d’une alg`ebre de Lie nilpotente. Bull. Soc. Math. France, 100:301–335, 1972. 72. W. Wasow. Asymptotic Expansions for Ordinary Diﬀerential Equations. Wiley Interscience, New York, 1976. 73. T.T. Wu, B.M. McCoy, C.A. Tracy, and E. Barouch. Spin-spin correlation functions for the two-dimensional Ising model: exact theory in the scaling region. Phys. Rev. B, 13:316–374, Journal ref: Adv. Math. 163, (2001) 137-205

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Mathematics arXiv (Cornell University)

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/symplectic-manifolds-and-isomonodromic-deformations-jTMmc05ydf

Loading next page...

ISSN: 0001-8708
eISSN: ARCH-3343
DOI: 10.1006/aima.2001.1998
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Journal

Mathematics – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jan 31, 2020

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Symplectic Manifolds and Isomonodromic Deformations

Symplectic Manifolds and Isomonodromic Deformations

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Symplectic Manifolds and Isomonodromic Deformations

Symplectic Manifolds and Isomonodromic Deformations

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies