2.1 Shimura datum

Let $(B,\star )$ be a finite-dimensional central semisimple $\mathbb {Q}$ -algebra endowed with a positive involution, with center F, and $(V,\langle .,.\rangle )$ be a nondegenerate skew Hermitian B-module, and let G be the algebraic group over $\mathbb {Q}$ of (similitude) automorphisms of $(V,\langle .,.\rangle )$ – that is, representing the functor

$$ \begin{align*} G(R) = \left\{ (g,c) \in \operatorname{\mathrm{GL}}\left(V\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}} R\right) \times \mathbb G_{m}(R) \mid \langle gz,gz^{\prime}\rangle = c\langle z,z^{\prime}\rangle, \forall z \in V\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}} R\right\} \end{align*} $$

on $\mathbb {Q}$ -algebras R.

Let $h : \mathbb {C} \longrightarrow \operatorname {\mathrm {End}}_{B}(V_{\mathbb {R}})$ be an $\mathbb {R}$ -algebra homomorphism such that $h\left (\overline z\right ) = h(z)^{\star }$ and the bilinear form $(\cdot ,h(i)\cdot )$ on $V_{\mathbb {R}}$ is positive definite. This induces a Shimura datum $(G,h)$ .

2.2 Characteristic $0$ moduli space

Let us denote by E the reflex field of the (Shimura) datum $(G,h)$ ; it is a number field. Fix $K \subset G\left (\mathbb A_{f}\right )$ a neat (for simplicity) compact open subgroup.

Following [Reference Lan14, Definition 1.4.2.1], let $\mathcal S_{K}$ be the moduli problem over $\operatorname {\mathrm {Spec}}(E)$ that associates to S the quasi-isogeny classes of quadruples $(A,\lambda ,\iota ,\eta )$ , where $A \longrightarrow S$ is an abelian scheme, $\lambda $ is a $\mathbb {Q}^{\times }$ -polarization of A, $\iota :B \longrightarrow \operatorname {\mathrm {End}}(A)\otimes (\mathbb {Q})_{S}$ is a morphism compatible with $\star $ and the Rosati involution, and $\eta $ is a rational level structure of type K of A (see [Reference Lan14, Definition 1.4.1.2] for a precise formulation). We moreover require that this quadruple satisfy the determinant condition (see [Reference Kottwitz12, §5] or [Reference Lan14, Definition 1.3.4.1]).

Then $\mathcal S_{K}$ is representable by a scheme over $\operatorname {\mathrm {Spec}}(E)$ . This is, for example, [Reference Lan14, Corollaries 1.4.3.7 and 7.2.3.10].

From now on, we fix a prime p. Let us be more specific about the determinant condition when S is over $\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ . First let us assume that the following hypothesis on p and B is satisfied:

By hypothesis, we can decompose $B_{\mathbb {Q}_{p}} = \bigoplus _{i =1}^{r} M_{n_{i}}(F_{i})$ , where $F_{i}/\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ is a finite, possibly ramified extension. We remark that the involution $\star $ on B acts on the set $\{1,\dotsc ,r\}$ ; we denote $s(i)$ the image of i by this involution. Denote by $E_{\nu }$ a p-adic completion of E; thus $E_{\nu }$ is a finite extension of $\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ . If $(A,\lambda ,\iota ,\eta )$ is an object over S in $\mathcal S_{K} \otimes _{E} {E_{\nu }}$ , then $\omega _{A} = \operatorname {\mathrm {Lie}}(A)^{\vee }$ is an $\mathcal O_{S} \otimes _{\mathbb {Q}} B$ -module, but as S is over $\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ , it is an $\mathcal O_{S} \otimes _{\mathbb {Q}_{p}} B_{\mathbb {Q}_{p}}$ -module, and we can thus decompose it as

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{A} = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{r} \omega_{A,i}, \end{align*} $$

where $\omega _{A,i}$ is an $\mathcal O_{S} \otimes _{\mathbb {Q}_{p}} M_{n_{i}}(F_{i})$ -module. Using Morita equivalence, we decompose $\omega _{A,i} = \mathcal O_{S}^{n_{i}}\otimes _{\mathcal O_{S}} \omega _{i}$ , where $\omega _{i} = e_{i}\omega _{A,i}$ is endowed with an action of $\mathcal O_{F_{i}}$ and $e_{i}$ is the Morita projector associated to the matrix $E_{1,1}$ seen as an element of $M_{n_{i}}(F_{i})$ . Up to an extension of scalars for S, we can further decompose $\omega _{i} = \bigoplus _{\tau \in \mathcal T^{\prime }_{i}}\omega _{i,\tau }$ , as locally free $\mathcal O_{S}$ -modules, where $\mathcal T^{\prime }_{i} = \operatorname {\mathrm {Hom}}\left (F_{i},\mathbb {C}_{p}\right )$ . Then the determinant condition is equivalent to asking the locally free $\left (\omega _{i,\tau ^{\prime }}\right )$ to have fixed dimension $\left (d_{i,\tau ^{\prime }}\right )_{i,\tau ^{\prime }}$ , where the integers $\left (d_{i,\tau ^{\prime }}\right )_{i,\tau ^{\prime }}$ are fixed by h as follows. Denote $V_{\mathbb {C}} = V_{1} \oplus V_{2}$ the decomposition where $h(z)$ acts as z (resp., $\overline z$ ) on $V_{1}$ (resp., $V_{2}$ ). Then the reflex field $E \subset \mathbb {C}$ is the number field where the isomorphism class of the complex B-representation $V_{1}$ is defined. It thus makes sense to consider $V_{\overline {\mathbb {Q}_{p}}} = V_{1,\overline {\mathbb {Q}_{p}}} \oplus V_{2,\overline {\mathbb {Q}_{p}}}$ as a $B_{\overline {\mathbb {Q}_{p}}}$ -representation. Using the hypothesis on B, decompose

$$ \begin{align*} V_{1,\overline{\mathbb{Q}_{p}}} = \prod_{i=1}^{r} V_{1}^{i} \otimes_{F_{i}\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_{p}}\overline{\mathbb{Q}_{p}}} \left(F_{i}\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_{p}} \overline{\mathbb{Q}_{p}}\right)^{n_{i}} \end{align*} $$

by Morita, where $V_{1}^{i}$ is an $F_{i}\otimes _{\mathbb {Q}_{p}} \overline {\mathbb {Q}_{p}}$ -module that we can further decompose as

$$ \begin{align*} V_{1}^{i} = \prod_{\tau^{\prime} \in \operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}\left(F_{i},\overline{\mathbb{Q}_{p}}\right)} \left(V_{1}^{i}\right)_{\tau^{\prime}}. \end{align*} $$

Then $d_{i,\tau ^{\prime }}$ is the dimension of $\left (V_{1}^{i}\right )_{\tau ^{\prime }}$ .

Remark 2.4. As our Shimura datum comes from an object over $\mathbb {Q}$ , we can check that for all i and for all $\tau ^{\prime },\tau ^{\prime \prime }$ ,

$$ \begin{align*} d_{i,\tau^{\prime\prime}} + d_{s\left(i,\tau^{\prime\prime}\right)} = d_{i,\tau^{\prime}} + d_{s\left(i,\tau^{\prime}\right)} = h_{i} \end{align*} $$

is independent of $\tau ^{\prime }$ , where s is the action induced by $\star $ (in the case where two factors $i,j$ are exchanged by $\star $ , recall that we set $j = s(i)$ ). This is, for example, [Reference Lan14, p. 59].

2.3 Pappas–Rapoport data

The goal of this section is to define a Pappas–Rapoport datum in order to define an integral model for the variety $\mathcal S_{K}$ which is analogous to the Kottwitz determinantial condition but better behaved in ramified characteristics. Such a datum, introduced in [Reference Pappas and Rapoport19], is referred to there as a splitting datum. We define such a datum in this section, and explain its behavior with duality.

2.3.1 Definition

Let $L/\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ be a finite extension, K be an extension of $\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ containing the Galois closure of L, and S be an $\mathcal O_{K}$ -scheme. Denote $L^{ur}$ the maximal unramified subfield of L and $\mathcal T = \operatorname {\mathrm {Hom}}\left (L^{ur},\mathbb {C}_{p}\right )$ the set of unramified embeddings, and fix $\pi $ a uniformizer of L, with Eisenstein polynomial Q. In particular, sending T to $\pi $ , we can identify

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal O_{L^{ur}}[T]/(Q(T)) \simeq \mathcal O_{F}. \end{align*} $$

Let us fix an embedding $\tau $ of $L^{ur}$ into K, and define $\Sigma $ as the set of embeddings of L into K extending $\tau $ . It is a set of cardiality e, and we choose an ordering $\Sigma = \{\sigma _{1}, \dotsc , \sigma _{e}\}$ for this set.

Let $\mathcal {N} \to S$ be a locally free sheaf with an action $\mathcal O_{L}$ , such that $\mathcal O_{L^{ur}}$ acts on $\mathcal {N}$ by $\tau $ . We will denote by $[\pi ]$ the action of $\pi $ on $\mathcal {N}$ . Let $(d_{1}, \dotsc , d_{e})$ be a collection of integers. We recall the definition of a Pappas–Rapoport datum:

Definition 2.5. A Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\mathcal {N}$ with respect to the collection $(\sigma _{i}, d_{i})_{i=1,\dotsc ,e}$ consists of a filtration

$$ \begin{align*} 0 = \mathcal{N}^{[0]} \subset \mathcal{N}^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \mathcal{N}^{[e]} = \mathcal{N} \end{align*} $$

such that:

1. 1. The $\mathcal {N}^{[j]}$ are $\mathcal O_{S}$ -locally direct factors stable by $\mathcal O_{L}$ .

2. 2. $\left ([\pi ] - \sigma _{j} (\pi )\right ) \cdot \mathcal {N}^{[j]} \subset \mathcal {N}^{[j-1]}$ , for all $1 \leq j \leq e$ .

3. 3. $\mathcal {N}^{[j]}/\mathcal {N}^{[j-1]}$ is locally free of rank $d_{j}$ for all $1 \leq j \leq e$ .

2.3.2 Duality

Next we want to explain the compatibility with duality for this datum. Assume that there exists a sheaf $\mathcal {E}$ , locally free of rank h as an $\mathcal O_{S} \otimes _{\mathcal O_{F^{ur}}, \tau } \mathcal O_{F}$ -module, such that $\mathcal {N}$ is locally a direct factor of $\mathcal {E}$ . Define $\mathcal {M} := (\mathcal {E} / \mathcal {N})^{\vee }$ ; it is a locally free sheaf over S, and has an action of $\mathcal O_{L}$ (with $\mathcal O_{L^{ur}}$ acting by $\tau $ ). One thus has an exact sequence

$$ \begin{align*} 0 \to \mathcal{N} \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{M}^{\vee} \to 0.\\[-24pt] \end{align*} $$

Let us introduce some more notation. Define $\pi _{i} := \sigma _{i}(\pi )$ for $1 \leq i \leq e$ , and let us introduce for $1 \leq \ell \leq e$ the polynomials

$$ \begin{align*} Q_{\ell} := \prod_{i=1}^{\ell} (T - \pi_{i}) \quad \text{and} \quad Q^{\ell} := \prod_{i=\ell+1}^{e} (T - \pi_{i}). \end{align*} $$

Note that the hypothesis made on $\mathcal E$ means that it is locally free as an $\mathcal O_{S} [T] / Q(T)$ -module (with T acting by $\pi $ ).

Definition 2.6. Let us define a complete filtration on $\mathcal {E}$

$$ \begin{align*} 0 = \mathcal{N}^{[0]} \subset \mathcal{N}^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \mathcal{N}^{[e]} = \mathcal{N} \subset \mathcal{N}^{[e+1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \mathcal{N}^{[2e]} = \mathcal{E} \end{align*} $$

by the formulas

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{N}^{[2e-\ell]} = \left( Q^{\ell} (\pi) \right)^{-1} \left(\mathcal{N}^{[\ell]}\right) \end{align*} $$

for every $1 \leq \ell \leq e-1$ .

A full Pappas–Rapoport datum for $(\mathcal E,\mathcal N)$ with respect to $(\sigma _{i},d_{i})_{i=1,\dotsc ,e}$ is a complete filtration of the previous form, where $\left (\mathcal N^{[i]}\right )_{i=1,\dotsc ,e}$ is a Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\mathcal N$ with respect to the same data.

The conditions imposed by the Pappas–Rapoport datum imply that the inclusions $\mathcal {N}^{[e+j]} \subset \mathcal {N}^{[e+j+1]}$ are satisfied for every $0 \leq j \leq e-1$ .

Lemma 2.7. Let $1 \leq j \leq e-1$ be an integer. The sheaf $\mathcal {N}^{[e+j]}$ is locally free of rank

$$ \begin{align*} jh + d_{1} + \dotsb + d_{e-j} = \dim_{\mathcal O_{S}}\mathcal N + h-d_{e} + \dotsb + h-d_{e-j+1}. \end{align*} $$

Moreover, one has

$$ \begin{align*} \left([\pi] - \sigma_{e-j+1}(\pi)\right) \mathcal{N}^{[e+j]} \subset \mathcal{N}^{[e+j-1]}. \end{align*} $$

Proof. This is an easy computation.

One deduces from this lemma that one has a Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\mathcal {M}$ .

Proposition 2.8. The complete filtration on $\mathcal {E}$ induces a Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\mathcal {M}$ with respect to the collection $((\sigma _{1},\dotsc ,\sigma _{e}),(h-d_{1}, \dotsc , h-d_{e}))$ .

Remark 2.9. In special fiber, the situation is much simpler. Indeed, one simply has $Q_{\ell } (\pi ) = \pi ^{\ell }$ , $Q^{\ell } (\pi ) = \pi ^{e-\ell }$ , and

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{N}^{[2e-\ell]} = \left( \pi^{e-\ell} \right)^{-1} \left(\mathcal{N}^{[\ell]}\right) \end{align*} $$

for every $1 \leq \ell \leq e-1$ .

2.3.3 Pairing

Assume in this section that the sheaf $\mathcal {E}$ has a perfect alternating pairing $\langle , \rangle : \mathcal {E} \times \mathcal {E} \to \mathcal {O}_{S}$ . Assume also that this pairing is compatible with the action of $\mathcal {O}_{L}$ – that is, that $\langle a \cdot x, y\rangle = \langle x, a \cdot y\rangle $ for $a \in \mathcal {O}_{F}$ and $x,y \in \mathcal {E}$ . This forces the integer h to be even; let g be such that $h = 2g$ . Assume moreover that $\mathcal N$ is maximally isotropic – that is, $\mathcal N = \mathcal N^{\bot }$ , the latter notation referring to the orthogonal of $\mathcal N$ for the pairing considered. This implies that $\mathcal N$ is locally free of rank $eg$ .

Proposition 2.10. Fix a Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\mathcal N$ with respect to the collection $(\sigma _{i},d_{i})_{i=1,\dotsc ,e}$ . There exists a complete filtration of $\mathcal E$ given by

$$ \begin{align*} 0 = \mathcal{N}^{[0]} \subset \mathcal{N}^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \mathcal{N}^{[e]} = \mathcal{N} \subset {\mathcal{N}^{[e-1]}}^{\bot} \subset \dotsb \subset {\mathcal{N}^{[1]}}^{\bot} \subset \mathcal E. \end{align*} $$

This filtration induces a Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\mathcal {M}$ with respect to the collection $((\sigma _{1},\dotsc ,\sigma _{e}),(d_{1}, \dotsc , d_{e}))$ .

Proof. Let us consider the sheaf ${\mathcal {N}^{[e-1]}}^{\bot }$ . It is locally a direct factor of rank $2eg - (d_{1} + \dotsb + d_{e-1})=eg+d_{e}$ , since $d_{1} + \dotsb + d_{e} = eg$ . Set $x \in {\mathcal {N}^{[e-1]}}^{\bot }$ and $y \in \mathcal {N}$ . Then $[\pi ] y - \sigma _{e}(\pi ) y \in \mathcal {N}^{[e-1]}$ , and thus

$$ \begin{align*} 0 = \langle x, [\pi]y - \sigma_{e}(\pi)y\rangle = \langle[\pi] x - \sigma_{e}(\pi) x, y\rangle. \end{align*} $$

One then gets $[\pi ] x - \sigma _{e}(\pi )x \in \mathcal {N}^{\bot } = \mathcal {N}$ . The results for the other sheaves are similar.

One would of course want this filtration to coincide with the previous one. This is possible only if $d_{i}=g$ for all $1 \leq i \leq e$ , which we will assume in the rest of the section.

Definition 2.11. One says that the filtration $\mathcal N^{[\bullet ]}$ is compatible with the pairing if

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{N}^{[2e-\ell]} = {\mathcal{N}^{[\ell]}}^{\bot} \end{align*} $$

for all $1 \leq \ell \leq e-1$ .

Let us be a little more explicit about this condition. If R is a polynomial, we denote by $\mathcal {E} [R]$ the kernel of $R(\pi )$ acting on $\mathcal {E}$ . One sees in particular that $\mathcal {N}^{[\ell ]} \subset \mathcal {E} [Q_{\ell }]$ for $1 \leq \ell \leq e$ .

Proposition 2.12. One has, for $1 \leq \ell \leq e$ ,

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{E} [Q_{\ell}]^{\bot} = \mathcal{E} \left[Q^{\ell}\right]. \end{align*} $$

Proof. Note that one has $\mathcal {E} [Q_{\ell }] = Q^{\ell } (\pi ) \mathcal {E}$ . The fact that x belongs to $\mathcal {E} [Q_{\ell }]^{\bot }$ is thus equivalent to the fact that $\langle x, Q^{\ell }(\pi ) y\rangle = 0$ for all $y \in \mathcal {E}$ . This is equivalent to the relation $Q^{\ell } (\pi ) x = 0$ .

Since multiplication by $Q^{\ell } (\pi )$ induces an isomorphism $\mathcal {E} / \mathcal {E} \left [Q^{\ell }\right ] \simeq \mathcal {E} [Q_{\ell }]$ , one has an induced perfect pairing

$$ \begin{align*} h_{\ell} : \mathcal{E} [Q_{\ell}] \times \mathcal{E} [Q_{\ell}] \to \mathcal{O}_{S}. \end{align*} $$

Explicitly, since $\mathcal {E} [Q_{\ell }] = Q^{\ell }(\pi ) \mathcal {E}$ , one has

$$ \begin{align*} h_{\ell} (Q_{\ell} (\pi) x, Q_{\ell} (\pi) y) = \langle x, Q_{\ell}(\pi) y\rangle = \langle Q_{\ell} (\pi) x , y\rangle. \end{align*} $$

Corollary 2.13. The filtration $\mathcal N^{[\bullet ]}$ is compatible with the pairing if and only if $\mathcal {N}^{[\ell ]}$ is totally isotropic in $\mathcal {E} [Q_{\ell }]$ for the pairing $h_{\ell }$ , for every $1 \leq \ell \leq e$ .

Proof. To say that the filtration is compatible with the pairing amounts to saying that for every $1 \leq \ell \leq e$ , one has ${\mathcal {N}^{[\ell ]}}^{\bot } = \left (Q^{\ell }(\pi )\right )^{-1} \mathcal {N}^{[\ell ]}$ . Since the orthogonal of $\mathcal {N}^{[\ell ]}$ for $h_{\ell }$ is $Q^{\ell }(\pi ) {\mathcal {N}^{[\ell ]}}^{\bot }$ , the result follows.

Remark 2.14. In special fiber, the situation is again much simpler. In this case, one has simply $\mathcal E [Q_{\ell }] = \mathcal E\left [\pi ^{\ell }\right ] = \pi ^{e-\ell } \mathcal E $ . The pairing $h_{\ell }$ on this sheaf is given by

$$ \begin{align*} h_{ \ell} \left(\pi^{e - \ell} x, \pi^{e - \ell} y\right) = \left\langle\pi^{e - \ell} x , y\right\rangle = \left\langle x, \pi^{e - \ell} y\right\rangle. \end{align*} $$

If $\mathcal F \subset \mathcal E\left [\pi ^{\ell }\right ]$ is totally maximally isotropic for $h_{ \ell }$ , then its orthogonal in $\mathcal E$ is equal to

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal F^{\bot} = \left(\pi^{e-\ell}\right)^{-1} \mathcal F. \end{align*} $$

2.3.4 Application to p-divisible groups

Let $G \longrightarrow S$ be a p-divisible group of height $h \left [L : \mathbb {Q}_{p}\right ]$ , endowed with an $\mathcal O_{L}$ -action. Thus, we can decompose $\omega _{G}$ , a locally free $\mathcal O_{S}$ -module, into

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{G} = \bigoplus_{ \tau \in \mathcal T} \omega_{G,\tau}. \end{align*} $$

Assume that $\omega _{G,\tau }$ is locally free of rank $p_{\tau }$ , and suppose, for all $\tau $ , integers

$$ \begin{align*} d_{\tau}^{1},\dotsc,d_{\tau}^{e} \end{align*} $$

such that $d_{\tau }^{i} \leq h$ for all $\tau ,i$ , and $d_{\tau }^{1} + \dotsb + d_{\tau }^{e} = p_{\tau }$ for all $\tau $ . Denote $f = \left [L^{ur}:\mathbb {Q}_{p}\right ]$ , so that $\operatorname {\mathrm {ht}}(G) = efh$ . Define $\mathcal H := \mathcal H(G) := H^{1}_{dR}(G/S) := \mathbb D(G)_{S \longrightarrow S}$ the evaluation of the crystal of G [Reference Berthelot, Breen and Messing2] on S. This is a locally free $\mathcal O_{S} \otimes _{\mathbb {Z}_{p}} \mathcal O_{L}$ -module of rank h, which moreover splits as

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal H = \bigoplus_{\tau \in \mathcal T} \mathcal H_{\tau}, \end{align*} $$

and for each piece, there is an exact sequence given by the Hodge filtration:

$$ \begin{align*} 0 \longrightarrow \omega_{G,\tau} \longrightarrow \mathcal H_{\tau} \longrightarrow \omega_{G^{D},\tau}^{\vee} \longrightarrow 0. \end{align*} $$

Definition 2.15. A Pappas–Rapoport datum for G, with respect to $L,\left (\sigma _{\tau ,j}\right ),\left (d_{\tau }^{j}\right )_{\tau \in \mathcal T,j}$ , is the datum, for all $\tau $ , of a full Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\left (\mathcal H_{\tau },\omega _{G,\tau }\right )$ – that is, a filtration by locally direct $\mathcal O_{S}$ -factors

$$ \begin{align*} 0 = \omega_{G,\tau}^{[0]} \subset \omega_{G,\tau}^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \omega_{G,\tau}^{[e-1]} \subset \omega_{G,\tau}^{[e]} = \omega_{G,\tau} \subset \omega_{G,\tau}^{[e+1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \omega_{G,\tau}^{[2e-1]} \subset\omega_{G,\tau}^{[2e]} = \mathcal H_{\tau} \end{align*} $$

satisfying the following properties:

1. 1. For $j = 1,\dotsc ,e$ , $\dim _{\mathcal O_{S}} \left (\omega _{G,\tau }^{[j]}/\omega _{G,\tau }^{[j-1]}\right ) = d_{\tau }^{j}$ .

2. 2. For $j = 1,\dotsc ,\ e \dim _{\mathcal O_{S}} \omega _{G,\tau }^{[e+j]}/\omega _{G,\tau }^{[e+j-1]} = h- d_{\tau }^{e-j+1}$ .

3. 3. For $j = 1,\dotsc ,e$ , $\left ([\pi ] - \sigma _{\tau ,j}(\pi )\right. \left (\omega _{G,\tau }^{[j]}\right ) \subset \omega _{G,\tau }^{[j-1]}$ .

4. 4. For $j = 1,\dotsc ,e$ , $ \left ([\pi ]-\sigma _{\tau ,e}(\pi )\right )\dotsm \left ([\pi ] - \sigma _{\tau ,e+j-1}(\pi )\right ) \omega _{G,\tau }^{[e+j]} \subset \omega _{G,\tau }^{[e-j]}.$

5. 5. For $j = 1,\dotsc ,e$ , $ \omega _{G,\tau }^{[e+j]} =\left (Q^{e-j} (\pi ) \right )^{-1} \omega _{G,\tau }^{[e-j]}.$

Definition 2.16. Let H be a locally free R-module (of finite rank) and R a ring, and denote

$$ \begin{align*} H \otimes H^{\vee} \longrightarrow R, \end{align*} $$

the perfect pairing between H and $H^{\vee } = \operatorname {\mathrm {Hom}}_{R}(H,R)$ . Let $W \subset H$ be a locally direct factor. The association

$$ \begin{align*} W \longmapsto W^{\perp} := \operatorname{\mathrm{Ker}}\left(H^{\vee} \twoheadrightarrow W^{\vee}\right) \end{align*} $$

is an inclusion reversing involution between locally direct factors of H and $H^{\vee }$ .

Thus by Proposition 2.8 we have the following:

Proposition 2.17. Let $\left (\omega _{G,\tau }^{[i]}\right )_{i=0,\dotsc ,2e}$ be a full Pappas–Rapoport datum for G with respect to $L,\left (\sigma _{\tau ,j}\right )_{\left (\tau ,j\right )},\left (d_{\tau }^{j}\right )_{\left (\tau ,j\right )}$ . Then $\left (\left (\omega _{G,\tau }^{[2e-i]}\right )^{\perp }\right )_{i=0,\dotsc ,2e}$ induces a full Pappas–Rapoport datum for $G^{D}$ with respect to $L,\left (\sigma _{\tau ,j}\right )_{\tau ,j},\left (h-d_{\tau }^{j}\right )_{\left (\tau ,j\right )}$ . Here $(.)^{\perp }$ denotes the previous involution under the identification $\mathcal H\left (G^{D}\right ) = \mathcal H(G)^{\vee }$ (which satisfies $\omega _{G}^{\perp } = \omega _{G^{D}}$ ).

Definition 2.18. Suppose we are given a ring extension $L/L^{+}$ of degree $\leq 2$ , such that L is a field or isomorphic to $L^{+}\times L^{+}$ , and set $s \in \operatorname {\mathrm {Gal}}\left (L/L^{+}\right )$ . Suppose we are given a polarization $\lambda : G \overset {\sim }{\longrightarrow } \left (G^{D}\right )^{(s)}$ . Then we say that a Pappas–Rapoport datum $\mathcal R$ for G is compatible with $\lambda $ if under the isomorphism $\lambda : \mathcal H(G) \overset {\sim }{\longrightarrow } \mathcal H\left (G^{D}\right )^{(s)}$ , the datum $\mathcal R$ and $\left (\mathcal R^{\perp }\right )^{(s)}$ (given by Proposition 2.17 and twisted by s) coincide. In particular, this implies that

$$ \begin{align*} d_{\tau,i}(\mathcal R) = h-d_{s(\tau),i}(\mathcal R). \end{align*} $$

Remark 2.19. In the situation when primes ramify further in $L/L^{+}$ , the previous compatibility is unfortunately impossible to achieve (except possibly in reduced special fiber). For example, let $L^{+} = \mathbb {Q}_{p}$ and $L = \mathbb {Q}_{p}[T]/(E(T))$ a quadratic extension in which $(p) = (\pi )^{2}$ ramifies. Denote by $c(\pi ) = \overline \pi $ the conjugate uniformizer. Thus a Pappas–Rapoport datum for $G/S$ , L, $(\pi ,\overline \pi )$ , and $d \leq h$ is the datum of

$$ \begin{align*} 0 \subset \omega^{[1]} \subset \omega_{G} \subset \mathcal F^{[1]} \subset \mathcal H,\\[-9pt] \end{align*} $$

such that $\mathcal F^{[1]} = (T-\overline {\pi })^{-1}\omega ^{[1]}$ . The associated datum of $\left (G^{D}\right )^{(s)}$ is

$$ \begin{align*} 0 \subset \left(\mathcal F^{[1]}\right)^{\perp,s} \subset \omega_{G^{D}}^{(s)} \subset \left(\omega^{[1]}\right)^{\perp,(s)} \subset H^{\vee,(s)}.\\[-9pt] \end{align*} $$

But T acts on $\mathcal H/\mathcal F^{[1]}$ as $\pi $ , and thus on $\left (\mathcal F^{[1]}\right )^{\perp ,s}$ as $\overline \pi $ . Moreover, $\left (\mathcal F^{[1]}\right )^{\perp ,c}$ is of rank $h-d_{1}$ when $\omega ^{[1]}$ is of rank $d_{1}$ . There is thus no chance that given an isomorphism

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda : G \overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow} G^{D,(s)}, \end{align*} $$

our Pappas–Rapoport datum is $\lambda $ -compatible (except if $\pi = \overline \pi $ on S, for example in special fiber, and $2d_{1} = h$ ). We will refer to this as case (AR) in the rest of the text.

2.4 Pappas–Rapoport models

Let $\mathcal O_{B}$ be a $\mathbb {Z}_{(p)}$ -order in B, preserved by $\star $ , such that its completion is a maximal $\mathbb {Z}_{p}$ -order in $B\otimes _{\mathbb {Q}} \mathbb {Q}_{p}$ , and let $(\Lambda ,\langle .,.\rangle )$ be a PEL $\mathcal O_{B}$ -lattice [Reference Lan14, Definition 1.2.1.3] such that $(\Lambda ,\langle .,.\rangle )\otimes _{\mathbb Z} \mathbb {Q} = (V,\langle .,.\rangle )$ . Moreover, assume Hypothesis 2.2 – that is, say $B_{\mathbb {Q}_{p}}$ is isomorphic to a product of matrix algebras over (necessarily finite) extensions of $\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ . Note that we do not assume that the extensions are unramified. Now assume that p is a good prime, in the sense that $p \nmid \left [\Lambda ^{\sharp }:\Lambda \right ]$ , where $\Lambda ^{\sharp } = \{ x \in V | \langle x,y\rangle \in \mathbb {Z}, \forall y \in \Lambda \}$ .Footnote ¹ This assumption will remain in force during all this article.

Let K be an extension of $E_{\nu }$ (with E the reflex field) which contains $F_{i}^{gal}$ for all i. We will want to consider a moduli problem X over $\mathcal O_{K}$ of associating to S quintuples $\left (A,\lambda ,\iota ,\eta ,\omega ^{[\cdot ]}\right )$ up to $\mathbb {Z}_{(p)}^{\times }$ -isogenies, where $\omega ^{[\cdot ]}$ will be a Pappas–Rapoport datum with respect to a combinatorial datum $\mathcal C$ which we now explain.

First, suppose we are given an abelian scheme A over S (itself over $\mathcal O_{K}$ ) endowed with an action $\iota : \mathcal O_{B} \longrightarrow \operatorname {\mathrm {End}}(A) \otimes _{\mathbb {Z}} \left (\mathbb {Z}_{(p)}\right )_{S}$ . Decompose $\omega _{A}$ as before so we get a collection $(\omega _{i})_{i=1,\dotsc ,r}$ , and now the action of $\mathcal O_{F_{i}^{ur}}$ on $\omega _{i}$ can be split (as S is over $\mathcal O_{K}$ ) as

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{i} = \bigoplus_{\tau \in \mathcal T_{i}} \omega_{i,\tau}, \end{align*} $$

where $\mathcal T_{i} = \operatorname {\mathrm {Hom}}\left (F_{i}^{ur},\mathbb {C}_{p}\right )$ . Unfortunately, if $F_{i}$ is ramified, we cannot further decompose the $\omega _{i,\tau }$ as we did over $\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ .

Denote by $\Sigma _{i,\tau }$ the subset of $\mathcal T^{\prime }_{i} := \operatorname {\mathrm {Hom}}\left (F_{i},\mathbb {C}_{p}\right )$ of embedding $\tau ^{\prime }$ that induces $\tau $ when restricted to $F^{ur}_{i}$ . Let us denote, for all $i \in \{1,\dotsc ,r\}$ , $\pi _{i}$ a chosen uniformizer of $F_{i}/F_{i}^{ur}$ and $Q_{i}$ a corresponding Eisenstein polynomial, and let us choose an ordering $\Sigma _{i,\tau } = \left \{\sigma _{i,\tau ,1},\dotsc ,\sigma _{i,\tau ,e_{i}}\right \}$ for the elements of $\Sigma _{i,\tau }$ , for all $i,\tau $ , where $e_{i} = \left [F_{i}:F_{i}^{ur}\right ]$ (it corresponds to an ordering of the conjugate roots of $\tau (Q_{i})$ ). This induces a bijection

$$ \begin{align*} \begin{array}{ccc} \{1,\dotsc,e_{i}\} & \overset{\sigma_{\bullet}}{\longrightarrow} & \Sigma_{i,\tau}, \\ j & \longmapsto & \sigma_{i,\tau,j} \end{array} \end{align*} $$

and a numbering $\left (d_{i,\tau ,j}\right )_{j = 1,\dotsc ,e_{i}}$ such that $\left \{ d_{i,\tau ,j} : j = 1,\dotsc ,e_{i}\right \} = \left \{ d_{i,\tau ^{\prime }} : \tau ^{\prime } \in \Sigma _{i,\tau }\right \}$ , by setting

$$ \begin{align*} d_{i,\tau,j} = d_{i,\sigma_{i,\tau,j}}, \end{align*} $$

where $d_{i,\sigma _{i,\tau ,j}}$ is defined in §2.2. We assume, moreover, to reflect Remark 2.4, that the choice of these bijections implies that, for all $i,\tau ,j$ ,

$$ \begin{align*} d_{i,\tau,j} = h_{i}-d_{s(i,\tau),j}, \end{align*} $$

where, as before, s is the action induced by $\star $ , the involution on B, on $\prod _{i} \operatorname {\mathrm {Hom}}\left (F_{i},\mathbb {C}_{p}\right )$ . To ease the notation, we will write

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{C} = \left(\left(\sigma_{i,\tau,j}\right)_{i,\tau,j},\left(d_{i,\tau,j}\right)_{i,\tau,j}\right) \end{align*} $$

and $\mathcal {C}_{i}= \left (\left (\sigma _{i,\tau ,j}\right )_{\tau ,j},\left (d_{i,\tau ,j}\right )_{\tau ,j}\right )$ for every i. We will also write $\mathcal {C}^{D} = \left (\left (\sigma _{i,\tau ,j} \circ s\right )_{i,\tau ,j},\left (h_{i} - d_{i,\tau ,j}\right )_{i,\tau ,j}\right )$ and $\mathcal {C}^{D}_{i}= \left (\left (\sigma _{i,\tau ,j} \circ s \right )_{\tau ,j},h_{i} -\left (d_{i,\tau ,j}\right )_{\tau ,j}\right )$ . Moreover, if we denote $\mathcal H = H^{1}_{dR}(A/S)$ , we can decompose

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal H = \bigoplus_{i} \mathcal H_{i}, \end{align*} $$

with $\mathcal H_{i}$ a $M_{n_{i}}\left (\mathcal O_{F_{i}}\right )$ -module, corresponding by Morita equivalence to $e_{i}\mathcal H_{i}$ , which we can further decompose as

$$ \begin{align*} e_{i}\mathcal H_{i} = \bigoplus_{\tau : F_{i}^{ur} \longrightarrow \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{p}} \mathcal H_{i,\tau}. \end{align*} $$

Note that if S is actually over $\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ , then

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{i,\tau} = \bigoplus_{\tau^{\prime} \in \Sigma_{i,\tau}} \omega_{i,\tau^{\prime}}, \end{align*} $$

and using the previous decomposition for $\omega $ , we get $\omega _{i,\tau }^{[\cdot ]}$ a filtration of $\omega _{i}$ :

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{i,\tau}^{[j]} = \bigoplus_{r = 1}^{j} \omega_{i,\sigma_{i,\tau,r}}. \end{align*} $$

Now assume that $\lambda $ is a $\mathbb {Z}_{p}^{\times }$ -polarization on A and $\iota $ is an $\mathcal O_{B}$ structure for $(A,\lambda )$ (that is, it satisfies the Rosati condition; compare [Reference Lan14, Definition 1.3.3.1]). Using this $\lambda $ , we deduce an isomorphism for all indices i,

$$ \begin{align*} e_{i}\mathcal H_{i} \simeq e_{s(i)}\mathcal H_{s(i)}^{\vee}, \end{align*} $$

coming from an isomorphism of the associated p-divisible group when decomposing $\mathcal A[p^{\infty }]$ , and we can thus apply Definition 2.18 for $F_{i}/F_{i}^{+} = F_{i}^{\star = 1}$ (when $s(i) = i$ ) or $F_{i} \times F_{s(i)}$ (when $i \neq s(i)$ ). As suggested in Remark 2.19, we say that an index i falls into case (AR) if $F_{i}$ is stable by $\star $ and the extension $F_{i}/F_{i}^{\star = 1}$ is ramified. This notation will be explained in more detail in §2.5.

As explained in Remark 2.19, we cannot ask for $\lambda $ -compatibility in case (AR). Unfortunately, in this situation the moduli space will not be studied in much detail in this article, but we will show that our two main theorems fail in this case.

Consider the moduli problem X over $\mathcal O_{K}$ , associating to S quintuples $\left (A,\lambda ,\iota ,\eta ,\omega ^{[\cdot ]}\right )$ up to $\mathbb {Z}_{(p)}^{\times }$ -isogenies, where

• – $A \longrightarrow S$ is an abelian scheme,

• – $\lambda : A \longrightarrow {^{t}}A$ is a $\mathbb {Z}_{(p)}^{\times }$ -polarization,

• – $\iota : \mathcal O_{B} \longrightarrow \operatorname {\mathrm {End}}(A) \otimes _{\mathbb {Z}} \left (\mathbb {Z}_{(p)}\right )_{S}$ is an $\mathcal O_{B}$ -structure of $(A,\lambda )$ (in particular, $\star $ induces the Rosati involution),

• – $\eta $ is a rational level structure outside p (see [Reference Lan14, §1.4.1]),

• – $\omega ^{[\cdot ]}$ is a Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\mathcal C$ , which is defined in Definition 2.21.

From now on, fix a level $K^{p} \subset G\left (\mathbb A_{f}^{p}\right )$ outside p and $\mathfrak C$ as before at p (‘without level at p, or rather maximal level at p), and call X the Pappas–Rapoport model over $\mathcal O_{K}$ of the Shimura variety $\mathcal S_{\mathfrak CK^{p}}$ . It thus make sense to reduce X over $\kappa $ , the residue field of K. The goal of this article is to study the geometry of $X_{\kappa } := X \times \operatorname {\mathrm {Spec}}(\kappa )$ .

2.5 Polygons

As explained in the previous section, we can decompose the Lie algebra $\omega _{A}$ of the universal abelian scheme A over X through the action of $\mathcal O_{B}\otimes \mathbb {Z}_{p}$ . Actually, we can also decompose the p-divisible group $A[p^{\infty }]$ . According to Hypothesis 2.2, we write

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal O_{B} \otimes \mathbb{Z}_{p} = \prod_{\pi \in \mathcal P} M_{n_{\pi}}(R_{\pi}), \end{align*} $$

where $\pi \in \mathcal P$ is a new indexation for $i \in \{1,\dotsc ,r\}$ – where the two factors $i, s(i)$ , exchanged by $\star $ , share the same index $\pi $ – and $R_{\pi } = \mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ if $i = s(i)$ or $R_{\pi } = \mathcal O_{F_{\pi }} \times \mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ if there are two factors (that is, $R_{\pi } = \mathcal O_{F_{i}} \times \mathcal O_{F_{s(i)}}$ if $\pi = [i]$ when $i \neq s(i)$ ). Thus $\mathcal P = \{1,\dotsc ,r\}_{/\sim _{s}}$ . We refer to the $\pi \in \mathcal P$ as places over p in B. We can thus decompose

$$ \begin{align*} A[p^{\infty}] = \prod_{\pi \in \mathcal P} A[\pi^{\infty}], \end{align*} $$

where $A[\pi ^{\infty }]$ is an $M_{n_{\pi }}(R_{\pi })$ -module that is p-divisible, and by Morita equivalence,

$$ \begin{align*} A[\pi^{\infty}] = \mathcal O_{R_{\pi}}^{n_{\pi}} \otimes_{\mathcal O_{R_{\pi}}} G_{\pi}. \end{align*} $$

Note that because the (universal) polarization $\lambda $ of A is compatible with $\star $ , each factor $A[\pi ^{\infty }]$ is still endowed with a polarization $\lambda _{\pi }$ and thus also $G_{\pi }$ . We will use this decomposition of $A[p^{\infty }]$ all the time, since if we know the $n_{\pi }$ , it is equivalent to knowing $A[p^{\infty }]$ (and $\lambda $ ) or the collection $(G_{\pi })_{\pi }$ (and the $\lambda _{\pi }$ ).

For all $\pi $ , $G_{\pi }$ is a polarized p-divisible group over X, the Pappas–Rapoport model, endowed with an action of $R_{\pi }$ .

Moreover, if $R_{\pi } = \mathcal O_{F_{\pi }} \times \mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ and $\star $ exchanges the two factors, we can further decompose $G_{\pi } = H_{\pi } \times H_{\pi }^{D}$ , and $\lambda _{\pi }$ exchanges the two factors. In this case, called (Split) or (AL), the datum of $(G_{\pi },\lambda _{\pi })$ is equivalent to $H_{\pi }$ .

Otherwise, $G_{\pi }$ is a p-divisible $\mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ -module with a polarization $\lambda _{\pi }$ , such that either

• – $\star $ induces the identity on $\mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ , which is equivalent to $\lambda _{\pi }$ being compatible with the $\mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ -action, which we refer to as case (C); or

• – $\star $ is an automorphism of order $2$ of $\mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ , and we denote $\mathcal O_{F^{+}_{\pi }}$ the subfield fixed by $\star $ . If $\mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ is unramified over $\mathcal O_{F_{\pi }^{+}}$ , we refer to this case as (Inert) or (AU), and if the extension is ramified, as (Ram) or (AR). In these two cases, $G_{\pi }$ satisfies the symmetry

  $$ \begin{align*} G_{\pi}^{D} \overset{\lambda_{\pi}}{\simeq} G^{(c)}_{\pi}, \end{align*} $$
  where c is the order $2$ automorphism of $F_{\pi }$ induced by $\star $ and $G^{(c)}_{\pi }$ is the p-divisible $\mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ -module where the endomorphism structure is $\iota ^{(c)} := \iota \circ c$ if $\iota $ denotes the endomorphism structure of $G_{\pi }$ .

From now on, we will fix an element $\pi \in \mathcal P$ . For the rest of this subsection, assume our base scheme S is a field k over $\kappa $ (thus of characteristic p). Let us be more explicit about the different cases.

2.5.1 Case (C)

In case (C), we will denote the p-divisible group $G_{\pi }$ simply by G, and $F_{\pi }$ by L. The p-divisible group G has an action of $\mathcal O_{L}$ and a polarization. It has height $2dg$ and dimension $dg$ , where d is the degree of L over $\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ . The sheaf $\omega _{G}$ decomposes as

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{G} = \bigoplus_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}} \omega_{\tau}, \end{align*} $$

where $\mathcal T$ is the set of embeddings of $L^{ur}$ . Recall the Hodge filtration for G:

$$ \begin{align*} 0 \to \omega_{G} \to H^{1}_{dR} \to \omega_{G^{D}}^{\vee} \to 0, \end{align*} $$

where $G^{D}$ is the Cartier dual of G. This exact sequence splits according to the elements of $\mathcal {T}$ . The Pappas–Rapoport condition for G is then as follows.

For each $\tau \in \mathcal {T}$ , one has a filtration

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{\tau}^{[0]} = 0 \subset \omega_{\tau}^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \omega_{\tau}^{[e]} = \omega_{\tau}, \end{align*} $$

where $\omega _{\tau }^{[i]}$ is locally a direct factor of rank $gi$ . Moreover, one has the following compatibility with the polarization:

$$ \begin{align*} {\omega_{\tau}^{[i]}}^{\bot} = (\pi^{e-i})^{-1} \omega_{\tau}^{[i]}, \end{align*} $$

taken in $H^{1}_{dR,\tau }$ for $1 \leq i \leq e$ (recall $\pi _{i} = 0$ in S here).

For each $\tau \in \mathcal T$ , one can define the polygon $Hdg_{\tau }(G)$ ; it is defined thanks to $\omega _{\tau }$ as in [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, Definition 1.1.7]. It starts at $(0,0)$ and ends at $(2g,g)$ . Since G has a polarization, this polygon is symmetric: its slopes are $\lambda _{1}, \dotsc , \lambda _{g}, 1-\lambda _{g}, \dotsc , 1 - \lambda _{1}$ . We define the polygon $Hdg(G)$ as the mean of the polygons $Hdg_{\tau }(G)$ .

The polygons $PR_{\tau }$ and $PR$ are all equal: they have slope $0$ and $1$ , each of them with multiplicity g.

We define the Newton polygon of G as in [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, Definition 1.1.8] and denote it $Newt(G)$ ; it is also symmetric.

2.5.2 Case (AL)

In this case, one has $G_{\pi } = H_{\pi } \times H_{\pi }^{D}$ . We will consider the p-divisible group $G = H_{\pi }$ . It is endowed with an action of $\mathcal {O}_{L}$ but has no polarization. The sheaf $\omega _{G}$ decomposes as

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{G} = \bigoplus_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}} \omega_{\tau}. \end{align*} $$

Fix $\left (a_{\tau ,j}\right ) \in \mathbb {Z}^{\mathcal T \times \{1,\dotsc ,e\}}$ , where e is the ramification index of L. Denote $a_{\tau } = \dim \omega _{\tau }$ and $b_{\tau } = \dim \omega _{G^{D},\tau }$ . Then $h^{\prime } = a_{\tau } + b_{\tau }$ is independent of $\tau $ . In the global setting, $\left (a_{\tau ,j}\right )$ will coincide with the part of the integers $d_{i,\tau ,j}$ corresponding to $H_{\pi }$ . The Pappas–Rapoport datum (for $(a_{\tau ,j})$ ) is then as follows. For each $\tau \in \mathcal {T}$ , one has a filtration

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{\tau}^{[0]} = 0 \subset \omega_{\tau}^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \omega_{\tau}^{[e]} = \omega_{\tau}, \end{align*} $$

where $\omega _{\tau }^{[i]}$ is locally a direct factor of rank $a_{\tau ,1} + \dotsb + a_{\tau ,i}$ .

Note that this Pappas–Rapoport datum induces a Pappas–Rapoport datum for $G^{D}$ (see Definition 2.16). For each $\tau \in \mathcal T$ , one can define the polygon $Hdg_{\tau }(G)$ ; it is defined thanks to $\omega _{\tau }$ [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, Definition 1.1.7]. It starts at $(0,0)$ and ends at $\left (a_{\tau }+b_{\tau },a_{\tau ,1} + \dotsb + a_{\tau ,e}\right ) = (h^{\prime },a_{\tau })$ . We define the polygon $Hdg(G)$ as the mean of the polygons $Hdg_{\tau }(G)$ .

The polygons $PR_{\tau }$ are defined in [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, §1]. The polygon PR is the mean of the polygons $PR_{\tau }$ .

We define the Newton polygon of G using [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, Definition 1.1.8] and denote it $Newt(G)$ . As we have used $H_{\pi }$ instead of $H_{\pi } \times H_{\pi }^{D}$ , these polygons do not need to be polarized (that is, symmetric in any sense).

2.5.3 Case (AU)

In this case, we define $G = G_{\pi }$ and we denote $F_{\pi }$ by L and by $L^{+}$ the subfield of elements fixed by $\star $ , which we denote by $\overline {.}$ as a conjugation. It is endowed with an action of $\mathcal O_{L}$ but has also a polarization. The sheaf $\omega _{G}$ decomposes as

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{G} = \bigoplus_{\tau \in \mathcal{T^{0}}} \omega_{\tau} \oplus \omega_{\overline{\tau}}, \end{align*} $$

where $\mathcal {T}$ is the set of embedings of L and $\mathcal {T^{0}}$ the embeddings of L modulo conjugation. We define $\left (a_{\tau ,j}\right ) \in \mathbb {Z}^{\mathcal T \times \{1,\dotsc ,e\}}$ as before, and $a_{\tau } = \dim \omega _{\tau }$ , $b_{\tau } = \dim \omega _{G^{D},\tau } = \dim \omega _{\overline \tau } = a_{\overline \tau }$ , and $h^{\prime } = a_{\tau } + b_{\tau }$ . The Pappas–Rapoport condition is then as follows. For each $\tau \in \mathcal {T}$ , one has a filtration

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{\tau}^{[0]} = 0 \subset \omega_{\tau}^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \omega_{\tau}^{[e]} = \omega_{\tau}, \end{align*} $$

where $\omega _{\tau }^{[j]}$ is locally a direct factor of rank $a_{\tau ,1} + \dotsb + a_{\tau ,j}$ .

Note that this Pappas–Rapoport condition coincides with the induced Pappas–Rapoport condition for $\omega _{\overline {\tau }}$ thanks to the compatibility with the polarization. For each $\tau \in \mathcal T$ , one can define the polygon $Hdg_{\tau }(G)$ ; it is defined using $\omega _{\tau }$ . It starts at $(0,0)$ and ends at $\left (a_{\tau }+b_{\tau },a_{\tau ,1} + \dotsb + a_{\tau ,e})=(h^{\prime },a_{\tau }\right )$ . We define the polygon $Hdg(G)$ as the mean of the polygons $Hdg_{\tau }(G)$ for all $\tau \in \mathcal T$ .

The polygons $PR_{\tau }$ are defined in [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3]. The polygon PR is the mean of the polygons $PR_{\tau }$ .

We define the Newton polygon of G as $Newt(G)$ .

2.5.4 Case (AR)

In this case also we still define $G = G_{\pi }$ , which is still polarized and carries an action as in case (C) or (AU), but we no longer have the $\lambda $ -compatibility for the Pappas–Rapoport datum. This does not change anything regarding the polygons: we can still define Hodge and Newton polygons using the action as in [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, §1] (this does not use the Pappas–Rapoport datum), and the polarization implies that ${\mathcal {N}\mathrm {ewt}}(G) = {\mathcal {N}\mathrm {ewt}}\left (G^{D}\right )$ and $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}(G) = \operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}\left (G^{D}\right )$ (equalities between $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\tau }(G) = \operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\overline \tau }(G^{D})$ ). Moreover, the Pappas–Rapoport polygon depends only on the integers $\left (d_{\tau ,j}\right )_{\tau ,j}$ , and these are symmetric for G and $G^{D}$ (see Remark 2.4).

In all the previous cases, thanks to [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, Théorème 1.3.1], one has the following result:

Proposition 2.25 [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, Théorème 1.3.1]

One has the inequalities

$$ \begin{align*} Newt(G) \geq Hdg(G) \geq PR, \end{align*} $$

and these polygons are all symmetric (except in case (AL)).

2.6 Stratifications

Using the previous polygons, we can define subsets of the reduction of X modulo p, $\lvert X_{\kappa }\rvert $ . Denote by $\mathrm {Pol}$ the set of polygonal convex functions on $[0,\dotsc ,h]$ with break points at abscissas in $\frac {1}{e}\mathbb {Z}$ . The previous polygons define two maps

$$ \begin{align*} \lvert X_{\kappa}\rvert \overset{{\mathcal{N}\mathrm{ewt}}_{\pi}}{\longrightarrow} \mathrm{Pol} \quad \text{and} \quad \lvert X_{\kappa}\rvert \overset{\operatorname{\mathrm{Hdg}}_{\pi}}{\longrightarrow} \mathrm{Pol}. \end{align*} $$

Proof. The result on the Newton polygon is well known (see, for example, [Reference Rapoport and Richartz20, Theorem 3.6]. For the Hodge polygon, note that locally on $X_{\kappa }$ we can trivialize $\omega _{G_{\pi },\tau }$ and the action of $\pi $ on it is nilpotent (as $\pi ^{e} = p = 0$ on $\mathcal O_{X_{\kappa }}$ ). Thus there is (Zariski locally) a continuous map

$$ \begin{align*} X_{\kappa} \longrightarrow Nilp_{p_{\tau}} \end{align*} $$

to the nilpotent cone of $\operatorname {\mathrm {GL}}_{p_{\tau }}$ , sending a point to the matrix of $\pi $ . We can check that the Hodge strata are exactly the pullback of the stratification on the nilpotent cone. But now the analogous result is known for $Nilp_{p_{\tau }}$ .

There is moreover a (constant) map $PR_{\pi } : \lvert X_{\kappa }\rvert \longrightarrow \mathrm {Pol}$ . If $\pi $ is understood from the context, we will drop it from the previous notations. Recall the following:

Definition 2.27. Define the Newton stratification of the reduction mod p of the Pappas–Rapoport model $X \otimes _{\mathcal O_{K}} \overline {\mathbb {F}_{p}} = \coprod _{\nu } X^{\nu }$ by

$$ \begin{align*} X^{\nu} = \{ x \in X_{\kappa} : {\mathcal{N}\mathrm{ewt}}(x) = \nu\}. \end{align*} $$

The locus $X^{\nu =PR}$ of points $x \in \lvert X_{\kappa }\rvert $ such that ${\mathcal {N}\mathrm {ewt}}(x) = \operatorname {\mathrm {PR}}(x)$ is called the $\mu $ -ordinary locus (for $\pi $ ).

In particular, the $\mu $ -ordinary locus is an open stratum, by Proposition 2.25. There is another natural stratification with another natural open stratum:

Definition 2.28. The locus $X_{\nu = PR}$ where $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\pi }(x) = \operatorname {\mathrm {PR}}(x)$ is called the generalized Rapoport locus (for $\pi $ ). It contains the $\mu $ -ordinary locus because of the inequalities recalled in the previous section. More generally, we can define the Hodge stratification $X_{\kappa } = \coprod _{\nu } X_{\nu }$ by

$$ \begin{align*} X_{\left(\nu_{\tau}\right)} = \left\{ x \in X_{\kappa} : \operatorname{\mathrm{Hdg}}_{\pi,\tau}(x) = \nu_{\tau}, \forall \tau\right\}. \end{align*} $$

Since for every $\tau $ we have $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\pi ,\tau } \geq PR_{\tau }$ , we have $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\pi } = \operatorname {\mathrm {PR}}$ if and only if $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\pi ,\tau } = \operatorname {\mathrm {PR}}_{\tau }$ for all $\tau $ . Note also that in cases (C), (AU), and (AR), because of the polarization there is a symmetry between $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\pi ,\tau }$ and $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\pi ,\overline \tau }$ . In particular, we should only consider symmetric data $(\nu _{\tau })$ in these cases, in order to have nonempty strata.

2.7 Smoothness of the integral model

In this section, we prove that the Pappas–Rapoport model X is smooth if all the primes above p fall into types (AL), (AU), or (C) (that is, do not fall into case (AR)). We will reduce to working locally; thus let $G/S$ be a p-divisible group over a scheme S, endowed with an action of $\mathcal O_{L}$ , where $L/\mathbb {Q}_{p}$ is a finite extension,Footnote ² possibly a polarization, and a Pappas–Rapoport datum. We call such a p-divisible group with action, eventual polarization, and Pappas–Rapoport datum a p-divisible $\mathcal D$ -module, with $\mathcal D$ referring to the type of the extra-datum (including the Pappas–Rapoport datum). Denote by $\mathcal H = H^{1}_{dR}(G/S)$ the locally free $\mathcal O_{S}$ -module associated to G. It is actually a locally free $\mathcal O_{S} \otimes _{\mathbb {Z}_{p}}\mathcal O_{F}$ -module of rank h. It is endowed, except in case (AL), with a polarization (that is, a perfect pairing)

$$ \begin{align*} \langle. ,.\rangle : \mathcal H \times \mathcal H^{s} \longrightarrow \mathcal O_{S}, \end{align*} $$

which is alternating, and such that

$$ \begin{align*} \langle x,ay\rangle = \langle s(a)x,y\rangle, \quad \forall x,y \in \mathcal H, \forall a \in \mathcal O_{F}. \end{align*} $$

Proof. As X is of finite presentation and thus Noetherian, it is enough to show that it is formally smooth. Let $S \twoheadrightarrow R$ be a surjective morphism of Noetherian rings with ideal I such that $I^{2} = 0$ . In particular, I is endowed with nilpotent divided powers, and thus we can use Grothendieck and Messing’s theory. Thus set $x \in X(R)$ . If p is invertible on R, as we know that X is smooth in generic fiber, there is y in $X(S)$ above x and we are done. Otherwise, by Serre and Tate, it is enough to lift the p-divisible group, and we can divide the task between the primes above p in $\mathcal O_{B}$ . Thus fix one such prime and $G/R$ the associated p-divisible group (with extra structures). By Grothendieck and Messing, it is enough to lift $\omega _{G}$ together with its Pappas–Rapoport datum as a locally direct factor (stable by $\mathcal O_{F}$ and totally isotropic) in

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal H \otimes_{R} S. \end{align*} $$

We will successively lift $\omega _{G}^{[1]}, \dotsc , \omega _{G}^{[e]}$ . Thus fix $\tau $ an embedding of $L^{ur}$ . We will work separately for each $\tau $ . Recall that in cases (C) and (AU) we have a polarization

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal H_{\tau} \times \mathcal H_{\overline\tau} \longrightarrow R \end{align*} $$

that lifts to S (as it is defined on the crystalline site of R). In particular, in case (AU) it will be sufficient to choose one element in $[\tau ] = \left \{\tau ,\overline \tau \right \}$ , say $\tau $ , for each embedding $\tau $ , lift the Pappas–Rapoport datum in $\mathcal H_{\tau }$ , and take its orthogonal, which will be a lift of the Pappas–Rapoport datum for $\overline \tau $ . Thus this is similar to case (AL). In case (C), we will moreover need the Pappas–Rapoport datum to be totally isotropic.

Recall that the sheaf $\mathcal H_{\tau }$ is locally free as an $R [T] / Q(T)$ -module, where Q is the Eisenstein polynomial of an uniformizer. We refer to §§2.3.2 and 2.5 for the notations. For example, for all $\ell \in \{1,\dotsc ,e\}$ , we write $Q = Q_{\ell } Q^{\ell }$ with $Q_{\ell }(T) = \prod _{i=1}^{\ell } (T-\pi _{i})$ . We have a submodule

$$ \begin{align*} \omega_{\tau}^{[1]} \subset \mathcal H_{\tau}[T-\pi_{1}], \end{align*} $$

which is moreover totally isotropic for $h_{\tau ,1}$ in case (C) by Corollary 2.13. Thus, there exists a lift (totally isotropic in case (C)) of this module to

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal H_{\tau} \otimes_{R} S[T-\pi_{1}], \end{align*} $$

which we denote by $\widetilde {\omega }_{\tau }^{[1]}$ . Now let us consider

$$ \begin{align*} E^{1}_{\tau} = \left(\mathcal H_{\tau} \otimes_{R} S /\widetilde{\omega}_{\tau}^{[1]} \right) \left[Q^{1}\right]. \end{align*} $$

It is a locally free $S[T]/\left (Q^{1}(T)\right )$ -module. Indeed, locally one can find a basis $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{h}$ of $H_{\tau } \otimes _{R} S$ over $S [T] / Q(T)$ such that $\widetilde {\omega }_{\tau }^{[1]}$ is generated by $Q^{1}(T) e_{1}, \dotsc , Q^{1} (T) e_{d}$ . One then sees that $E^{1}_{\tau }$ is locally free over $S[T]/\left (Q^{1}(T)\right )$ , with basis $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{d}, (T-\pi _{1})e_{d+1}, \dotsc , (T-\pi _{1}) e_{h}$ . In particular, $E^{1}_{\tau } [T - \pi _{2}]$ is locally free over S, and contains modulo I the image of $\omega ^{2}_{\tau }$ as a locally direct factor. In case (C), the fact that $\widetilde \omega _{\tau }^{[1]}$ is totally isotropic for $h_{1, \tau }$ implies that $E^{1}_{\tau }$ inherits the pairing from $\mathcal {H}_{\tau }$ . Thus, it is enough to lift the image of $\omega ^{2}_{\tau }$ as a locally direct factor in

$$ \begin{align*} E_{\tau}^{1}[T-\pi_{2}], \end{align*} $$

which is moreover in case (C) totally isotropic for $h_{\tau ,2}$ (by Corollary 2.13). But such a lift exists (by smoothness of the appropriate partial flag variety), and thus there exists $\widetilde {\omega }_{\tau }^{[2]} \subset \mathcal H_{\tau } \otimes S$ lifting ${\omega }_{\tau }^{[2]}$ .

Suppose that we have constructed for $1 \leq \ell \leq e-1$ locally direct factors

$$ \begin{align*} \widetilde\omega_{\tau}^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \widetilde\omega_{\tau}^{[\ell]} \subset \mathcal H_{\tau}[Q_{\ell}]\otimes_{R} S, \end{align*} $$

which are moreover isotropic for $h_{\tau ,\ell }$ in case (C), lifting the previous datum over R to S. Denote

$$ \begin{align*} E^{\ell}_{\tau} = \left(\mathcal H_{\tau} \otimes_{R} S /\widetilde{\omega}_{\tau}^{[\ell]} \right) \left[Q^{\ell}\right]. \end{align*} $$

As before, it is a locally free $S[T]/\left (Q^{\ell }(T)\right )$ -module, which contains modulo I the image of $\omega ^{\ell + 1}_{\tau }$ as a locally direct factor. In case (C), the fact that $\widetilde \omega _{\tau }^{[\ell ]}$ is totally isotropic for $h_{\ell , \tau }$ implies that $E^{\ell }_{\tau }$ inherits the pairing from $\mathcal {H}_{\tau }$ . With the same argument as before, one lifts the image of $\omega ^{\ell + 1}_{\tau }$ as a locally direct factor in the locally free S-module

$$ \begin{align*} E_{\tau}^{\ell}[T-\pi_{\ell+1}], \end{align*} $$

which is moreover in case (C) totally isotropic for $h_{\tau ,\ell +1}$ (by Corollary 2.13). By induction, we can thus find a lift of the filtration

$$ \begin{align*} 0 \subset \omega^{[1]}_{\tau} \subset \dotsb \subset \omega^{[e]}_{\tau} \end{align*} $$

to S satisfying all the assumptions of the Pappas–Rapoport datum. Thus by Grothendieck and Messing (as $I^{2} = 0$ ) there exists a point $y \in X(S)$ lifting x, and X is smooth.

2.8 Deformations and displays

In order to construct deformations of a point x in $X_{\kappa }$ , associated to a datum $\left (A,\lambda ,i,\eta ,\left (\omega ^{[\cdot ]}_{\bullet }\right )\right )$ , we will deform the p-divisible group $A[p^{\infty }]$ , the action of $\mathcal O_{B}$ , the polarization, and the Pappas–Rapoport condition, and use Serre–Tate theory (because $\eta $ is a level structure outside p, we can deform it trivially).

Moreover, using the previous simplification of $A[p^{\infty }]$ using $\mathcal O_{B}\otimes \mathbb {Z}_{p}$ and Morita equivalence, it is enough to deform the polarized p-divisible $\mathcal O_{F_{\pi }}$ -modules $G_{\pi }$ together with their Pappas–Rapoport filtration – that is, the p-divisible $\mathcal D_{\pi }$ -module for all $\pi $ . We thus remove $\pi $ from the notation, and we have G a (possibly) polarized p-divisible $\mathcal O$ -module. To such a p-divisible group over a perfect field k of characteristic p is associated a Dieudonné module over $W(k)$ (more precisely, its Dieudonné crystal), and we want to deform it over $k[[X]]$ such that the special fiber at $X=0$ corresponds to G, and the generic fiber satisfies better properties, like being $\mu $ -ordinary for example. In order to do this, we will use the theory of displays (compare [Reference Zink28] and [Reference Lau17] for equivalence with the étale part). We will be interested mainly in the tools developed in [Reference Wedhorn26, §3.2] (particularly §3.2.7 and Theorem 3.2.8). In particular, we have the following:

Proposition 2.33 Zink–Wedhorn; [Reference Wedhorn26, Theorem 3.2.8]

Let k be a perfect field of characteristic p, $G/k$ (with additional structures $\iota _{0},\lambda _{0}$ ), and denote by $P_{0}$ the associated display (with additional structures $\iota _{0},\lambda _{0}$ ). Let N be a $W(k)$ -linear endomorphism of $P_{0}$ satisfying the following properties:

1. 1. $N^{2} = 0$ .

2. 2. N is skew-symmetric with respect to $\lambda _{0}$ .

3. 3. N is $\mathcal O$ -linear.

Then there exists a deformation $(P,\iota ,\lambda )$ of $(P_{0},\iota _{0},\lambda _{0})$ (of display with additional structures) over $k[[t]]$ whose associated p-divisible group (with additionnal structure) $(X_{N},\iota ,\lambda )$ lifts $(X,\iota _{0},\lambda _{0})$ and such that if $P_{0}$ is bi-infinitesimal,

$$ \begin{align*} (X_{N},\iota,\lambda) \otimes_{k[[t]]} k((t))^{perf} \simeq \mathcal{BT^{\prime}}\left((P,\iota,\lambda)\otimes_{k[[t]]} k((t))^{perf}\right), \end{align*} $$

where $\mathcal {BT}^{\prime }$ associates to a crystal (over a perfect field) its p-divisible group.

3.1 Lifting a module with filtration

This is an intermediary section which contains some results concerning the existence of lifts of modules satisfying certain properties.

Proof. We prove this result by induction on the integer r. Let us consider the case $r=1$ .

Define $\overline {M} = M \otimes _{k[[X]]} k$ , and let s be the dimension of $\overline {N_{1}} \cap \overline {Fil}$ . Then there exists a basis $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{d_{1}}$ of $N_{1}$ such that the reduction of $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{s}$ is a basis for $\overline {N_{1}} \cap \overline {Fil}$ . One can then complete in a basis $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{h}$ of M such that the reduction of $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{s}, e_{d_{1}+1}, \dotsc , e_{d_{1}+l-s}$ forms a basis for $\overline {Fil}$ .

If $l+d_{1} \leq h$ , one defines $Fil$ to be generated by $e_{1} + X e_{d_{1}+l-s +1}, \dotsc , e_{s} + X e_{d_{1}+l}, e_{d_{1}+1}, \dotsc , e_{d_{1}+l-s}$ .

If $l+d_{1}>h$ , one defines $Fil$ to be generated by

$$ \begin{align*} e_{1} + X e_{d_{1}+l-s +1}, \dotsc, e_{h+s-d_{1}-l} + X e_{h}, e_{h+s-d_{1}-l+1}, \dotsc, e_{s}, e_{d_{1}+1}, \dotsc, e_{d_{1}+l-s}. \end{align*} $$

Now let us turn to the general case. Let $\overline {L_{0}}$ be a complementary subspace of $\overline {Fil} \cap \overline {N_{k}}$ inside $\overline {Fil}$ . One will lift the direct sum $\overline {L_{0}} \oplus \overline {Fil} \cap \overline {N_{k}}$ . One will take an arbitrary lift of $\overline {L_{0}}$ ; by doing so, one reduces to the case where $\overline {Fil} \subset \overline {N_{k}}$ . Let s be the dimension of $\overline {L_{1}} := \overline {Fil} \cap \overline {N_{1}}$ . One will then distinguish two cases.

If $s \leq h - d_{k}$ , one defines a lift $L_{1}$ of $\overline {L_{1}} $ such that $L_{1} \cap N_{k} = \{ 0 \}$ in the generic fiber. Considering a complementary subspace $\overline {Fil}^{\prime }$ of $\overline {L_{1}} $ in $\overline {L}$ , one can use the induction hypothesis by considering the modules $N_{2} \subset \dotsb \subset N_{k} \subset M$ .

If $s> h - d_{k}$ , let $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{h}$ be a basis of M adapted to the filtration $N_{1} \subset \dotsb \subset N_{k} \subset M$ . Assume also that the reduction of $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{s}$ is a basis for $\overline {L_{1}} $ . Let $\overline {L_{0}} $ be the vector subspace of $\overline {L_{1}}$ spanned by the reduction of $e_{1}, \dotsc , e_{h-d_{k}}$ . Let us consider the lift $L_{0}$ of $\overline {L_{0}} $ spanned by $e_{1} + X e_{d_{k}+1}, \dotsc , e_{h-d_{k}} + X e_{h}$ . Let $\overline {Fil^{\prime }} $ be a complementary subspace of $\overline {L_{0}} $ in $\overline {Fil}$ . To lift $\overline {Fil^{\prime }}$ , we are thus reduced to lifting it in $M^{\prime } = \operatorname {\mathrm {Vect}}\left (e_{s+1},\dotsc ,e_{d_{k}}\right )$ , endowed with the filtration $N_{1} \cap M^{\prime } \subset N_{k-1} \cap M^{\prime } \subset M^{\prime }$ . We are thus reduced to the case of a smaller k, and by induction we are done.

In the polarized case, one will use the following lemma:

3.2 Density of the generalized Rapoport locus

In this section, we use the previous lemmas to prove the following:

To prove this theorem, we do it for one $\pi $ at a time and find a lift ‘locally’ – that is, for $G_{\pi }$ . We will thus consider the possible cases: (AL), (AU), and (C).

3.2.1 Cases (AL) and (AU)

Proof. Let x be a point of $X_{\kappa } := X\otimes \kappa $ and $G = G_{\pi }$ the associated p-divisible group. We want to prove that there exists a deformation of x which lies in the generalized Rapoport locus. Thanks to Grothendieck and Messing, we deform the Hodge filtration of G. For each $\tau \in \mathcal {T}$ , one uses Lemma 3.1 to deform $\omega _{\tau }$ . By duality in case (AU), one automatically has a deformation of $\omega _{\overline {\tau }}$ , hence of the whole of $\omega _{G}$ .

Let us now describe the way to lift $\omega _{\tau }$ . Let $D=H^{1}_{dR, \tau }$ ; it is free as a $k[X]/(X^{e})$ -module. Let M be the ( $\tau $ -part of the) evaluation of the crystal at $k[[t]]$ ; it is free as a $k[[t]][X]/(X^{e})$ , and reduces to D modulo t. To lift $\omega _{\tau }$ , one successively lifts $\omega _{\tau }^{[1]}, \dotsc , \omega _{\tau }^{[e]}$ . First, one lifts $\omega _{\tau }^{[1]}$ in $M[X]$ , the X-torsion of M. Let $L_{1}$ be any such lift. Then in order to lift $\omega _{\tau }^{[2]}$ , one works in $M_{1} := X^{-1} L_{1} / L_{1}$ . One has the submodule $N_{1} = M[X]/ L_{1}$ . One uses Lemma 3.1 to lift $\omega _{\tau }^{[2]}$ to a module $L_{2}$ in such a way that the dimension of $L_{2} \cap M[X]$ in generic fiber is $\max (d_{1},d_{2})$ . Then one considers $M_{2} := X^{-1} L_{2} / L_{2}$ . One has the submodules $N_{1}^{\prime } = (M[X] + L_{2})/L_{2}$ and $N_{2}^{\prime } = \left (M\left [X^{2}\right ]\cap X^{-1}L_{2} + L_{2}\right ) / L_{2}$ . Again, one uses Lemma 3.1, and gets a lift $L_{3}$ of $\omega _{\tau }^{[3]}$ such that in generic fiber the dimensions of $L_{3} \cap M[X]$ and $L_{3} \cap M\left [X^{2}\right ]$ are, respectively, $\max (d_{1},d_{2}, d_{3})$ and $\max (d_{1}+d_{2}, d_{1} + d_{3}, d_{2}+d_{3})$ .

First we prove two auxiliary lemmas.

Lemma 3.5. There exists a lift $\left (\widetilde {\omega _{\tau }^{[i]}}\right )$ of $\omega _{\tau }^{[1]} \subset \dotsb \subset \omega _{\tau }^{[e]} \subset D$ in $D\otimes k[[t]]$ satisfying the Pappas–Rapoport conditions and such that

$$ \begin{align*} \dim \left(\widetilde{\omega_{\tau}^{[i]}}\right)\left[X^{j}\right] = \max_{ 0 <k_{1} < \dotsb < k_{j} \leq i} d_{k_{1}} + \dotsb + d_{k_{j}}. \end{align*} $$

Proof. Indeed, by induction we have proven the result for $i = 1,2,3$ . Suppose it is true for $i \geq 1$ , and denote

$$ \begin{align*} M_{i} = X^{-1}L_{i}/L_{i}, \qquad N_{j} = \left(M\left[X^{j}\right]\cap X^{-1}L_{i} + L_{i}\right)/L_{i}, \quad \forall j \leq i, \qquad \overline L = \omega_{\tau}^{[i+1]}/\omega_{\tau}^{[i]}. \end{align*} $$

A direct calculation shows that $\dim _{k[[t]]} M_{i} = h$ , $\dim _{k} \overline L = d_{i+1}$ , and $\dim _{k[[t]]} N_{j} = h - \dim \left (L_{i}\left [X^{j}\right ]\backslash L_{i}\left [X^{j-1}\right ]\right )$ . We use Lemma 3.1 with these data to find L such that

$$ \begin{align*} \dim_{k[[t]]} L\cap N^{j} = \max\left(0,d_{i+1} - \dim \left(L_{i}\right.\left[X^{j}\right]\backslash L_{i}\left[X^{j-1}\right]\right). \end{align*} $$

Let $\widetilde {\omega _{\tau }^{[i]}}$ be the preimage of L via $X^{-1}L_{i} \longrightarrow M_{i}$ ; we thus have

$$ \begin{align*} \dim \widetilde{\omega_{\tau}^{[i]}}\left[X^{j}\right] = \dim L_{i}\cap N^{j} + \dim L_{i}\left[X^{j}\right] &= \max\left(L_{i}\left[X^{j}\right], d_{i+1} + \dim L_{i}\left[X^{j-1}\right]\right) \\ &= \max_{ 0 <k_{1} < \dotsb < k_{j} \leq i+1} d_{k_{1}} + \dotsb + d_{k_{j}}. \end{align*} $$

Thus the lemma is proved.

Lemma 3.6. Let S be a $\kappa $ -scheme and $\omega ^{[e]} \subset \left (\mathcal O_{S} \otimes _{\mathcal O_{F^{ur}}} \mathcal O_{F}\right )^{h}$ be a sub- $\mathcal O_{S} \otimes \mathcal O_{F}$ -module. Then $\omega ^{[e]}$ is in the generalized Rapoport locus for the datum $(d_{i})_{1 \leq i \leq e}$ (that is, $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}(\omega ^{e}) = \operatorname {\mathrm {PR}}(d_{i})$ ) if and only if for all j,

$$ \begin{align*} \dim \omega^{[e]}\left[X^{j}\right] = \max_{ 0 <k_{1} < \dotsb < k_{j} \leq e} d_{k_{1}} + \dotsb + d_{k_{j}}. \end{align*} $$

Proof. As the two properties are independent of the ordering of the values $(d_{i})$ , simplify $d_{1} \geq d_{2} \geq \dotsb \geq d_{e}$ . Then the last proposition means $\dim \omega ^{[e]}\left [X^{j}\right ] = d_{1} + \dotsb + d_{j}$ , which means exactly $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}(i) = \operatorname {\mathrm {PR}}(i)$ .

Reducing inductively the datum given in Lemma 3.5 to $k[[t]]/(t^{n})$ , one gets a map by Grothendieck and Messing:

$$ \begin{align*} \operatorname{\mathrm{Spf}}(k[[t]]) \longrightarrow X_{\kappa}. \end{align*} $$

(Note that $k[[t]]/(t^{n}) \longrightarrow k[[t]]\left (t^{n-1}\right )$ is endowed with nilpotent divided powers.) But as $X_{\kappa }$ is a scheme, this induces a map $\widetilde {x} : \operatorname {\mathrm {Spec}}(k[[t]]) \longrightarrow X_{\kappa }$ , generizing our point x, and such that in generic fiber the module $\widetilde {x}^{*}\omega _{\tau }[1/t]$ is given by $\widetilde {\omega _{\tau }}[1/t]$ and thus lies in the generalized Rapoport locus, by Lemma 3.6.

3.2.2 Case (C)

Proof. One keeps the same notations as in the previous section. One lifts the module $\omega _{\tau }$ in M. But in this case, the module M has a perfect pairing, and one needs to consider totally isotropic lifts.

One starts by considering the module $M_{1} := M[X]$ . This module has a perfect pairing $h_{1}$ (induced by the one on M; see §2.3.3 and Remark 2.14), and we can lift the module $\omega _{\tau }^{[1]}$ to a module $L_{1} \subset M_{1}$ , which is still totally isotropic for $h_{1}$ . Then one considers the module $M_{2} := X^{-1} L_{1} / L_{1}$ . Since $L_{1}$ is totally isotropic in $M_{1}$ for $h_{1}$ , the pairing $h_{2}$ induces a pairing on $M_{2}$ . Using Lemma 3.2, one takes a lift $L_{2}$ of $\omega _{\tau }^{[2]}$ , such that $L_{2} / L_{1}$ is totally isotropic in $M_{2}$ for $h_{2}$ and disjoint from $M[X]/L_{1}$ in generic fiber.

One repeats this process and gets lifts $L_{1} \subset L_{2} \subset \dotsb \subset L_{e}$ . In generic fiber, the multiplication by X is an isomorphism between $L_{i+1} / L_{i}$ and $L_{i} / L_{i-1}$ for every $1 \leq i \leq e-1$ , and the lift $L_{e}$ of $\omega _{\tau }$ is thus generically free as an $\mathcal O_{F} \otimes _{\tau } k[[t]] = k[[t]][X]/(X^{e})$ -module. As before, by Grothendieck and Messing this leads to an algebraizable map

$$ \begin{align*} \operatorname{\mathrm{Spf}}(k[[t]]) \longrightarrow X_{\kappa} \end{align*} $$

generizing x and whose generic fiber lies in the Rapoport locus.

3.3 Futher strata

As the Hodge stratification is constructed using the nilpotent cone of some $\operatorname {\mathrm {GL}}_{n}$ , for which the stratification is a strong stratification, we can investigate the same question for X. First recall the definition of a strong stratification:

Definition 3.7. Let X be a topological space. A (weak) stratification of X with respect to a partially ordered set $(I, \leq )$ is a decomposition

$$ \begin{align*} X = \coprod_{i \in I} X_{i} \end{align*} $$

such that $\overline {X_{i}} \subset \coprod _{j \leq i} X_{j}$ . A (weak) stratification is a strong stratification if, moreover,

$$ \begin{align*} \overline{X_{i}} = \coprod_{j \leq i} X_{j}. \end{align*} $$

Proof. This has nothing to with do with abelian varieties but rather with the space of partial flags on a fixed space, together with a nilpotent operator (called Spaltenstein varieties). Let K be any field, $V = K^{6}$ , and suppose we are given a full flag

$$ \begin{align*} 0 \subset V_{1} \subset V_{2} \subset V_{3} = V, \end{align*} $$

with $\dim _{K} V_{i} = 2i$ . Suppose moreover that there is $\pi \in \operatorname {\mathrm {End}}_{K}(V)$ such that $\pi (V_{i}) \subset V_{i-1}$ for all $i \geq 1$ . This corresponds to (the local model of) a Pappas–Rapoport datum (AL) with $e = 3$ and $d_{1} = d_{2} = d_{3} = 2$ . Fix a basis $e_{1},\dotsc ,e_{6}$ of V such that $e_{1},e_{2}$ is a basis of $V_{1}$ and $e_{1},\dotsc ,e_{4}$ a basis of $V_{2}$ . Then set the following choices for $\pi $ in this basis:

$$ \begin{align*} \pi_{1} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & I_{2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) \quad \text{and} \quad \pi_{2} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 &0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{align*} $$

In both cases, $\pi $ satisfies the condition of a Pappas–Rapoport datum, with $\pi _{j}^{2} = 0$ . The Hodge polygons are associated with the partitions $(4,2)$ and $(3,3)$ of $6$ , and $(3,3) \leq (4,2)$ , but there exists no deformation from $((V_{i}),\pi _{1})$ to a space with Hodge polygons $(3,3)$ which satisfies the Pappas–Rapoport condition. Indeed, if it were the case, then the Hodge polygon of $(\pi _{1})_{\rvert V_{2}}$ would descend by generization, and thus would remain the same, and thus the $\pi $ -torsion of the deformation should intersect $V_{2}$ only along $V_{1}$ , and $\pi $ would send $V_{2}$ surjectively to $V_{1}$ . Now that means, as $\pi $ sends $V_{3}$ to $V_{2}$ and $\pi ^{2}$ sends $V_{3}$ to $0$ (as it is of Hodge polygon $(3,3)$ ), $\pi $ sends V to $V_{1}$ , and thus the kernel of $\pi $ is of rank $4$ – a contradiction.

Denote X the moduli space of all possible $((V_{i}),\pi )$ with $d_{i} = 2$ and $\pi (V_{i}) \subset V_{i-1}$ . Denote by $X_{(3,3)}$ the Hodge stratum corresponding to the Hodge polygon of partition $(3,3)$ and by $X_{(4,2)}$ the analogous one. If $\overline {X_{(3,3)}} \supset X_{(4,2)} \ni x = ((V_{i}),\pi _{1})$ , take C an irreducible component of $X_{(3,3)}$ passing through x and look at the local ring of C at x, $\mathcal O_{C,x}$ . This induces a generization of x such that the Hodge polygon is above $(3,3)$ and under $(4,2)$ , and by the previous calculation cannot be equal to $(3,3)$ . Thus it is generically $(4,2)$ too. This is true for all components C, and thus locally at x, $X_{(4,2)}$ is an open component of $X_{(3,3)}$ , and thus $x \not \in \overline {X_{(3,3)}}$ .

We still hope to construct a strong stratification on $X_{\kappa }$ , by ‘cutting’ in parts the Hodge strata. Unfortunately, the situation gets very complicated when the ramification index e grows. One has, however, the following result when $e=2$ . Recall that in polarized cases – (C), (AU), and (AR) – we consider only symmetric data $(\nu _{\tau })_{\tau }$ for the Hodge strata.

Proof. If $e =1$ , there is only one Hodge stratum and everything is trivial. If $e=2$ , we can assume $d_{\tau ,1} \geq d_{\tau ,2}$ . Indeed, in case (C) there is an equality, and in cases (AL) or (AU) considering the dual group (which coincides with $G^{(s)}$ in case (AU), and thus we can in case (AU) consider only half of the embeddings $\tau $ , as we did in the proof of Theorem 2.30), we can reduce to this case. The $\tau $ -Hodge polygon is given by two integers $a_{\tau ,1} \geq a_{\tau ,2}$ such that if $x \in X_{\kappa }(k)$ , then $\omega _{\tau ,x}[\pi ]$ is a k-vector space of dimension $a_{\tau ,1}$ and $\omega _{\tau ,x}$ is of dimension $a_{\tau ,1}+a_{\tau ,2}$ . As $\omega _{\tau ,x}^{[1]}$ is of dimension $d_{\tau ,1}$ and of $\pi $ -torsion by the Pappas–Rapoport condition, we have that $d_{\tau ,1} \leq a_{\tau ,1}$ . Thus all the possible $\tau $ -Hodge polygons are classified by couples $\left (a_{\tau ,1},a_{\tau ,2}\right )$ with $a_{\tau ,1} \geq d_{\tau ,1}$ and $a_{\tau ,1} + a_{\tau ,2} = d_{\tau ,1} + d_{\tau ,2}$ . Moreover, if $\left (a_{\tau ,1},a_{\tau ,2}\right )$ and $\left (b_{\tau ,1},b_{\tau ,2}\right )$ are two $\tau $ -Hodge polygons, the former is above the latter if and only if $a_{\tau ,1} \geq b_{\tau ,1}$ . The generalized Rapoport locus corresponds to $\left (a_{\tau ,1},a_{\tau ,2}\right ) = \left (d_{\tau ,1},d_{\tau ,2}\right )$ . Thus we will prove that given any point $x \in X(k)$ with $\tau $ -Hodge polygon $\left (a_{\tau ,1},a_{\tau ,2}\right )$ not in the generalized Rapoport locus, there is a deformation to $k[[t]]$ with $\tau $ -Hodge polygon $\left (a_{\tau ,1}-1,a_{\tau ,2}+1\right )$ . Fix such a point, and fix a $k[\pi ]/\pi ^{2}$ basis of $H^{1}_{dR,\tau }$ , $e_{1},\dotsc ,e_{h}$ such that $\pi e_{1},\dotsc , \pi e_{d_{1}}$ is a basis of $\omega _{\tau }^{[1]}$ over k and $e_{1},\dotsc ,e_{r},\pi e_{d_{1}+1},\dotsc ,\pi e_{d_{1}+s}$ (necessarily with $r \leq d_{1}$ ) induces a basis of $\omega _{\tau }/\omega _{\tau }^{[1]}$ . Then $r +s = d_{2}$ and $a_{\tau ,1} = d_{1} + s$ . As this point is not in the generalized Rapoport locus, we have $s> 0$ , and thus $r < d_{1}$ . Then set in $H^{1}_{dR,\tau } \otimes _{k[\pi ]/\pi ^{2}} \left (k[\pi ]/\pi ^{2}\right )[[t]]$

$$ \begin{align*} \widetilde{\omega_{\tau}}^{[1]} &= k[[t]](\pi e_{1},\dotsc,\pi e_{d_{1}}) \quad \text{and} \quad \widetilde{\omega_{\tau}} = \widetilde{\omega_{\tau}}^{[1]}\\&\quad + k[[t]]\left(e_{1},\dotsc,e_{r},e_{d_{1}+s} + te_{r+1},\pi e_{d_{1}+1},\dotsc,\pi e_{d_{1}+s-1}\right). \end{align*} $$

In case (C), we need to choose a lift of $\operatorname {\mathrm {Vect}}\left (e_{1},\dotsc ,e_{r},\pi e_{d_{1}+1},\dotsc ,\pi e_{d_{1}+s}\right )$ in $\pi ^{-1}\widetilde {\omega _{\tau }}^{[1]}/\widetilde {\omega _{\tau }}^{[1]}$ (which has a perfect pairing), whose intersection with $H^{1}_{dR,\tau }[\pi ]/\widetilde {\omega _{\tau }}^{[1]}$ is of dimension $s-1$ . But we can quotient further by $\operatorname {\mathrm {Vect}}(e_{1},\dotsc ,e_{r})$ (which is totally isotropic), and we are reduced to the case $r =0$ . In this case, this is as in the proof of the first part of Lemma 3.2, taking the matrix A to be symmetric of rank $1$ .

Then, as in the proof of §3.2.1, there is a lift of x whose Hodge filtration is given by $\widetilde {\omega _{\tau }}$ . Moreover,

$$ \begin{align*} \dim_{k((t))^{perf}} \left(\widetilde{\omega_{\tau}}\otimes k((t))^{perf}\right)[\pi] = d_{1}+s-1.\\[-36pt] \end{align*} $$

4.1 Density of the $\mu $ -ordinary locus

The goal of this section is to show the following theorem:

To prove the theorem, we will once again follow the strategy of deformations of the p-divisible group (by Serre and Tate’s theorem), one prime at a time in each case. Moreover, by Theorem 3.3, we only need to deform p-divisible groups that are already in the generalized Rapoport locus. Our main tool is proposition 2.33. From now on we will consider only lifts of a crystal in the sense of [Reference Wedhorn26, §3.2.3]. We thus call a deformation of a crystal over k a display over $k[[t]]$ of the form $P_{\alpha }$ for some $\alpha \in \operatorname {\mathrm {Hom}}_{W(k[[t]])}(P, W(tk[[t]])P)$ in the notation of [Reference Wedhorn26] (with P the base change to $k[[t]]$ of our crystal). A generization will then be the generic fiber of a deformation.

Moreover, for cases (AU) and (C) we will have to use slightly more adapted polarizations. Indeed, the objects considered have a natural polarization, compatible in a certain sense to the additional action of a ring $\mathcal O$ , but not $\mathcal O$ -Hermitian (or bilinear). As the methods used in this section are of purely local nature, we can forget about the PEL datum used to define the variety X, and thus we will freely reuse notation; in particular, F will denote Frobeniuses in this section. Denote by $L/L^{+}$ the extension of (local) fields at the prime considered (thus $L = L^{+}$ in case (C)), and denote by $s \in \operatorname {\mathrm {Gal}}\left (L/L^{+}\right )$ the nontrivial automorphism (if it exists; $s=\operatorname {\mathrm {id}}$ otherwise). We denote by $e,f$ the ramification index and residual degree of $L^{+}$ , and by $\kappa $ the residue field of L. Denote by $\operatorname {\mathrm {Diff}}^{-1} = \operatorname {\mathrm {Diff}}^{-1}_{L}$ the inverse different of L, and $\mathcal O = \mathcal O_{L}$ , and $\operatorname {\mathrm {tr}} : \operatorname {\mathrm {Diff}}^{-1} \longrightarrow \mathbb {Z}_{p}$ . We call a p-divisible $\mathcal D$ -module (resp., a $\mathcal D$ -crystal, a $\mathcal D$ -display) a p-divisible group (resp., a crystal, a display) with extra structure depending on the situation (that is, an action of $\mathcal O$ , together with a polarization in case (AU) or (C) satisfying certain properties). In this section we can forget a bit about the Pappas–Rapoport data, as explained later, thanks to Theorem 3.3, and thus we will not make it appear in the datum $\mathcal D$ . In cases (AU) and (C), we have the following:

Proposition 4.3. Let k be a perfect field of characteristic p and G be a p-divisible $\mathcal D$ -module. Its Dieudonné module M, a free $W_{}(k)\otimes _{\mathbb {Z}_{p}}\mathcal O$ -module – together with two applications

$$ \begin{align*} V : M \longrightarrow M \quad \text{and} \quad F : M \longrightarrow M, \end{align*} $$

which are $\sigma ^{-1}$ (resp., $\sigma $ )-linear, satisfying $FV = VF = p\operatorname {\mathrm {id}}$ – is endowed with an s-anti-Hermitian $W_{\mathcal O}(k)$ -pairing

$$ \begin{align*} h : M \times M \longrightarrow W(k)\otimes \operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}^{-1} \end{align*} $$

satisfying

$$ \begin{align*} h(x,Fy) = h(Vx,y)^{\sigma},\quad \forall x,y \in M. \end{align*} $$

Moreover, if $\langle .,.\rangle $ denotes the original alternating pairing on M, we have $\operatorname {\mathrm {tr}}_{F/\mathbb {Q}_{p}} h = \langle. ,.\rangle $ . Such an h is unique. In particular, in case (C), h is alternating. If $\mathcal P = \left (P,Q,F,V^{-1}\right )$ is a $\mathcal D$ -display over $k[[t]]$ with pairing $\langle ,\rangle $ , then there exists an s-anti-Hermitian $W(k[[t]])\otimes _{\mathbb {Z}_{p}}\mathcal O$ -pairing

$$ \begin{align*} h : P \times P \longrightarrow W(k[[t]])\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}^{-1} \end{align*} $$

satisfiying $\operatorname {\mathrm {tr}} h = \langle ,\rangle $ and $^{v}h\left (V^{-1}x,V^{-1}y\right )= h(x,y)$ for all $x,y \in Q$ , and which is moreover compatible with the previous construction over k and $k((t))^{perf}$ .

Proof. The existence of h, the s-anti-Hermitian satisfying $\operatorname {\mathrm {tr}} h = \langle , \rangle $ , is [Reference Lan14, Lemma 1.1.4.5] for $R = W(k)$ or $R=W(k[[t]])$ and $R_{0} = \mathbb {Z}_{p}$ . Thus it suffices to prove the compatibility with F and V. But for all $x,y \in M, o \in \mathcal O$ ,

$$ \begin{align*} \operatorname{\mathrm{tr}} o h(x,Fy) = \operatorname{\mathrm{tr}} h(ox,Fy) = \langle ox,Fy\rangle = \langle Vox,y\rangle^{\sigma}& = \langle oVx,y\rangle^{\sigma} \\ &\qquad= \operatorname{\mathrm{tr}}(h(oVx,y)^{\sigma}) = \operatorname{\mathrm{tr}}(o h(Vx,y)^{\sigma}). \end{align*} $$

Thus, by [Reference Lan14, Corollary 1.1.4.1] we have $h(x,Fy) = h(Vx,y)^{\sigma }$ , for all $x,y \in M$ . Similarly, for a display $\mathcal P$ ,

$$ \begin{align*} \operatorname{\mathrm{tr}} \left(o \cdot^{v}h\left(V^{-1}x,V^{-1}y\right)\right) &= \operatorname{\mathrm{tr}}\left({}^{v}h\left(V^{-1}(ox),V^{-1}y\right)\right) ={}^{v}\operatorname{\mathrm{tr}}\left(h\left(V^{-1}(ox),V^{-1}y\right)\right) \\ &\qquad={}^{v}\left\langle V^{-1}(ox),V^{-1}y\right\rangle = \langle ox,y\rangle = \operatorname{\mathrm{tr}}(h(ox,y))=\operatorname{\mathrm{tr}}(o h(x,y)), \end{align*} $$

for all $o \in \mathcal O$ , and thus $^{v}h\left (V^{-1}x,V^{-1}y\right )= h(x,y)$ . The compatibility is obvious when looking at the display associated to a Dieudonné module (and unicity).

Unfortunately, it will not always be possible to assume h alternating, even if $\langle , \rangle = \operatorname {\mathrm {tr}} h$ is, as shown by the following example:

Example 4.4. Let $\mathbb {C} = \mathbb {R}^{2}$ endowed with the $\mathbb {R}$ -linear alternating pairing $\mathbb {C} \times \mathbb {C} \longrightarrow \mathbb {R}$ given in basis $(1,i)$ of $\mathbb {C}$ by

$$ \begin{align*} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right), \end{align*} $$

whose h is given by $\frac {i}{2} z_{1} \overline { z_{2}}$ .

But in case (C), as $s \in \operatorname {\mathrm {Gal}}\left (L/L^{+}\right )$ satisfies $s = \operatorname {\mathrm {id}}$ , we have that h is antisymmetric, and thus alternating (as $\operatorname {\mathrm {Char}}(W_{\mathcal O}(k)) \neq 2$ ).

4.2 Case (AL)

Let $x_{G}$ be a point in the Rapoport locus, with values in a perfect field k, corresponding to a group G, and fix $\tau _{0}$ . Note that any generization of $x_{G}$ still lives in the Rapoport locus. Let M be the Dieudonné crystal of G over k.

Lemma 4.5. In order to prove the density result, one can assume that for all $\tau $ , the first slope of the Hodge polygon is $0$ . In particular, for all $\tau $ there exists $x_{\tau } \in M_{\tau }$ such that

$$ \begin{align*} F_{\tau}(x_{\tau}) \not\equiv 0 \pmod{\pi}. \end{align*} $$

Thus, assume the first slope of $\operatorname {\mathrm {Hdg}}_{\tau }(G)$ is $0$ for all $\tau $ . If the first slope for $Newt(x_{G})$ is also $0$ , then there is a splitting

$$ \begin{align*} G = G^{0} \times G^{\prime}, \end{align*} $$

where the Newton polygon of $G^{\prime }$ does not have a slope $0$ [Reference Bijakowski and Hernandez3, Théorème 1.3.2]. If we can find a deformation of $G^{\prime }$ which is $\mu $ -ordinary, then we are finished. Thus up to exchanging G by $G^{\prime }$ , we can suppose that the first slope of $Newt(G)$ is nonzero and proceed by induction on the height of G.

Set $x \in M_{\tau _{0}}$ such that $F(x) \not \equiv 0 \pmod {\pi }$ (this is possible by the preceding lemma). Let $i(x)$ be the minimal integer such that

$$ \begin{align*} F^{i(x)}(x) \equiv 0 \pmod \pi. \end{align*} $$

As the Newton polygon of G does not have a zero slope, there exists such an $i(x)$ . Denote by $i(G)$ (or $i(x_{G})$ ) the maximum of $i(x)$ , for $x \in M_{\tau _{0}}$ . By the preceding, we know that $i(G) \geq 2$ .

Proof. Suppose $i=i(x_{G}) \leq f$ . Thus $F^{i}(x) \equiv 0 \pmod \pi $ . By the previous lemma, there is $x_{i-1} \in M_{\sigma ^{i-1}\tau }$ such that $F(x_{i-1}) \not \equiv 0 \pmod \pi $ . As $y = F^{i-1}(x) \not \equiv 0 \pmod \pi $ but $F(y) \equiv 0 \pmod \pi $ , $(x_{i-1},y)$ is a linearly independent family in $M_{\sigma ^{i-1}\tau }/\pi M_{\sigma ^{i-1}\tau }$ . Define a homomorphism of $M/\pi M$ by

$$ \begin{align*} N_{\tau^{\prime}} = 0, \quad \forall \tau^{\prime} \neq \sigma^{i-1}\tau, \quad \text{and} \quad N_{\sigma^{i-1}\tau}y = x_{i-1}, \qquad N_{\sigma^{i-1}\tau}x_{i-1} = 0, \end{align*} $$

and extend N by zero on a complementary basis of $M_{\sigma ^{i-1}\tau }$ . Denote by N any nilpotent lift of N to M. Define $D_{N}$ as the extension of M to $W(k[[u]])$ given by N as in [Reference Wedhorn26] (see also [Reference Zink28]). We can calculate

$$ \begin{align*} F_{N}^{i}(x) {\,=\,} F_{N}\left(F_{N}\left(F_{N}^{i-2}(x)\right)\right) {\,=\,} F_{N}\left(F_{N}\left(F^{i-2}(x)\right)\right) &= F_{N}(y\otimes 1 + x_{i-1} \otimes u) {\,\equiv\,} F_{N}(x_{i-1}\otimes u) \\ &\qquad\equiv F(x_{i-1})\otimes u \not\equiv 0 \pmod \pi. \end{align*} $$

Thus over $W\left (k((u))^{perf}\right )$ , the display $D_{N}$ corresponds to a p-divisible group $G^{\prime }$ such that $i(G^{\prime })> i$ , by Proposition 2.33. By induction, we get the result.

Proof. By the previous lemma, we can assume $F^{f}(x) \not \equiv 0 \pmod \pi $ . If G is not itself infinitesimal, let $r_{0}$ be the minimal integer such that

$$ \begin{align*} F^{r_{0}f}(x) \equiv 0 \pmod \pi. \end{align*} $$

The family $\left (x,F^{f}(x),\dotsc ,F^{\left (r_{0}-1\right )f}(x)\right )$ is linearly independent mod $\pi $ . Indeed, suppose we are given

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_{0}x + \lambda_{1} F^{f}(x) + \dotsb + \lambda_{r_{0}-1}F^{\left(r_{0}-1\right)f}(x) \equiv 0 \pmod \pi, \end{align*} $$

and denote by i the smallest integer such that $\lambda _{i} \neq 0 \pmod \pi $ . Then

$$ \begin{align*} F^{if}(x) = \lambda_{i}^{-1}\left(\lambda_{i+1} F^{(i+1)f}(x) + \dotsb + \lambda_{r_{0}-1}F^{\left(r_{0}-1\right)f}(x)\right), \end{align*} $$

and thus $F^{\left (r_{0}-i-1\right )f}\left (F^{if}(x)\right ) = F^{\left (r_{0}-1\right )f}(x) \equiv 0 \pmod \pi $ , which is impossible. Set N such that

$$ \begin{align*} N_{\tau^{\prime}} = 0, \quad \forall \tau^{\prime} \neq \tau, \qquad Nx = NF^{if}(x) = 0, \quad \forall i \neq 1, \qquad\text{and}\qquad NF^{f}(x) = x. \end{align*} $$

Set $D_{N},F_{N}$ the associated display over $W(k[[u]])$ which reduces to $(M,F)$ . We calculate

$$ \begin{align*} F_{N}^{f}(x) = F^{f}(x) + uNF^{f}(x) = F^{f}(x) + ux, \end{align*} $$

and more generally,

$$ \begin{align*} F_{N}^{if}(x) = F^{if}(x) + uF^{(i-1)f}(x_{0}) + \dotsb + u^{i}x_{0}. \end{align*} $$

In particular,

$$ \begin{align*} F_{N}^{r_{0}f}(x) = 0 + uF^{\left(r_{0}-1\right)f}(x) + \dotsb + u^{r_{0}}x \neq 0 \pmod \pi. \end{align*} $$

Thus, the base change to $W\left (k((u))^{perf}\right )$ of $D_{N}$ satisfies $r_{0}(D_{N})> r_{0}(M)$ . By induction, we can assume that $r_{0}> \dim D$ , and thus that D is not infinitesimal.