arxiv: v1 [math.ag] 20 Jun 2013

Transcription

1 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES AND SOME PROBLEMS VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () arxiv: v1 [math.ag] 20 Jun 2013 ABSTRACT. Donaldson-Thomas invariant is expressed as the weighted Euler characteristic of the socalled Behrend (constructible) function. In [2] Behrend introduced a -type invariant for a morphism. Motivated by this invariant, we extend the motivic Hirzebruch class to naive Donaldson-Thomas type analogues. We also discuss a categorification of the -type invariant for a morphism from a bivarianttheoretic viewpoint, and we finally pose some related questions for further investigations. 1. INTRODUCTION The Donaldson Thomas invariant χ (M) (abbr. invariant) is the virtual count of the moduli space M of stable coherent sheaves on a Calabi Yau threefold over k. Here k is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Foundational materials for invariants can be found in [28], [2], [16], [18]. In [2] Behrend made an important observation that the Donaldson Thomas invariant χ (M) is described as the weighted Euler characteristic χ(m,ν M ) of the socalled Behrend (constructible) functionν M. For a scheme X of finite type, the Donaldson Thomas type invariant χ (X) is defined as χ(x,ν X ). The topological Euler characteristic (more precisely, the topological Euler characteristic with compact support) χ satisfies the scissor formula χ(x) = χ(z) + χ(x \ Z) for a closed subvariety Z X. This scissor formula implies that χ can be considered as the homomorphism from the Grothendieck group of varietiesχ : K 0 (V) Z, and furthermore it can be extended to the relative Grothendieck group,χ : Z for each schemex. The Grothendieck Riemann Roch version of the homomorphismχ : Z is the motivic Chern class transformationt 1 : K 0(V/X) H BM (X) Q. Namely we have that When X is a point, T 1 : K 0(V/X) H BM (X) Q equals the homomorphism χ : K 0 (V) Z Q. The composite X T 1 = χ : K 0(V/X) Z Q. HereT 1 : K 0(V/X) H BM (X) Q is the specialization to y = 1 of the motivic Hirzebruch class transformationt y : H BM (X) Q[y] (see [4]). On the other hand the Donaldson Thomas type invariantχ (X) does not in general satisfy the scissor formula χ (X) χ (Z) + χ (X \ Z). Namely, χ ( ) cannot be captured as a homomorphismχ : K 0 (V) Z. Instead the following scissor formula holds: (1.1) χ (X idx X) = χ (Z iz,x X)+χ (X \Z i X\Z,X X). Here i Z,X and i X\Z,X are the inclusions. For this formula to make sense, we need the Donaldson Thomas type invariant χ (X f Y) for a morphism f : X Y, which is also introduced in [2] and simply defined as χ(x,f ν Y ). Then, χ can be considered as the homomorphism χ : Z. Note that in the case whenx is a point,χ : K 0 (V/pt) = K 0 (V) Z is the usual Euler characteristic homomorphismχ : K 0 (V) Z. (*) Funded by EPSRC (**) Partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number

2 2 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () In this paper we consider Grothendieck Riemann Roch type formulas forχ, using the motivic Hirzebruch class transformation T y ([4]), and we also propose to consider a bivariant-theoretic aspect for the categorification of the invariant. By that we mean a graded vector space encoding an appropriate cohomology theory whose Euler characteristic is equal to invariant. Naive reasons for the latter one are the following. The categorification of the Euler characteristic is nothing but χ(x) := i ( 1) i dim R H i c (X;R). Note that the compact-support-cohomologyhc i (X;R) is isomorphic to the Borel Moore homology (X;R). The categorification of the Hirzebruchχ y -genus is H BM i χ y (X) = ( 1) i dim C Gr p F (Hi c (X;C))( y)p with F being the Hodge filtration of the mixed Hodge structure of Hc i (X;C). Since the type invariant of a morphism satisfies the scissor formula (1.1), we propose to introduce some bivarianttheoretic homology theory Θ (X f Y) categorifying χ (X f Y), that is χ (X f Y) = i ( 1)i dimθ i (X f Y). (Here we denote it symbolically ; as described in the case ofχ y -genus, the above alternating sum of the dimensions might be complicated involving some other ingredients such as mixed Hodge structures.) 2. DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE INVARIANTS OF MORPHISMS Let K be an algebraically closed field of characteristic p, which is not necessarily zero. Let X be a K-scheme of finite type. For a prime numberl such that l p and the field Q l ofl-adic numbers, the following Euler characteristic χ(x) := i ( 1) i dim Ql H i c(x,q l ) is independent on the choice of the prime number l. In fact the following properties hold (e.g., see [13, Theorem 3.10]): Theorem 2.1. Let K be an algebraically closed field and X,Y be separated K -schemes of finite type. Then (1) If Z is a closed subscheme ofx, thenχ(x) = χ(z)+χ(x \Z). (2) χ(x Y) = χ(x)χ(y). (3) χ(x) is independent of the choice of l in the above definition (4) If K = C,χ(X) is the usual Euler characteristic with the analytic topology. (5) χ(k m ) = 1 andχ(kp m ) = m+1 for m > 0 For a constructible functionα : X Z onx the weighted Euler characteristicχ(x,α) is defined by χ(x,α) := mχ(α 1 (m)). m Let X be embeddable in a smooth scheme M and let C M X be the normal cone of X in M and let π : C M X X be the projection and C M X = m i C i, where m i Z are multiplicities and C i s are irreducible components of the cycle. Then the following cycle C X/M := ( 1) dim(π(ci)) m i π(c i ) Z(X) is in fact independent of the choice of the embedding ofx into a smoothm, thus simply denoted by C X without referring to the ambient smooth M and is called the distinguished cycle of the scheme. Then consider the isomorphism from the abelian groupsz(x) of cycles to the abelian groupf(x) of constructible functions Eu : Z(X) = F(X)

3 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 3 which is defined byeu( i m i[z i ]) := i m ieu Zi, whereeu Z denotes the local Euler obstruction supported on the subscheme Z i. Then the image of the distinguished cycle C X under the above isomorphism Eu defines a canonical integer valued constructible function ν X := Eu(C X ), which is called the Behrend function. The fundamental properties of the Behrend function are the following. Theorem 2.2. (1) For a smooth point x of a scheme X of dimension n, ν X (x) = ( 1) n. In particular, if X is smooth of dimensionn, thenν X = ( 1) n 1 X. (2) ν X Y = ν X ν Y. (3) If f : X Y is smooth of relative dimensionn, thenν X = ( 1) n f ν Y. (4) In particular, if f : X Y is étale, thenν X = f ν Y. The weighted Euler characteristic of the above Behrend function is called the Donaldson Thomas type invariant and denoted byχ (X): χ (X) := χ(x,ν X ). In [2, Definition 1.7] Kai Behrend defined the following. Definition 2.3. The -invariant or virtual count of a morphismf : X Y is defined by χ (X f Y) := χ(x,f ν Y ), whereν Y is the Behrend function of the target schemey. Remark 2.4. Here we emphasize that χ (X f Y) is defined by the constructible functionf ν Y on the source schemex. From the definition we can observe the following: (1) χ (X idx X) = χ(x,ν X ) = χ (X) is the -invariant ofx. (2) χ (X πx pt) = χ(x,f ν pt ) = χ(x, 1 X ) = χ(x) is the topological Euler-Poincaré characteristic ofx. (3) If Y is smooth, whatever the morphism f : X Y is, we have χ (X f Y) = ( 1) dimy χ(x). The very special case is that Y = pt, which is the above (2). The Euler characteristic χ( ) satisfies the additivity χ(x) = χ(z) + χ(x \ Z) for a closed subscheme Z X. Hence, χ is considered as a homomorphism from the Grothendieck group of varietiesχ : K 0 (V) Z and furthermore as a homomorphism from the relative Grothendieck group of varieties over a fixed variety X ([23]) χ : Z, which is defined by χ([v h X]) = χ(v) = χ(v, 1 V ) = χ(v,h 1 X ) = χ(x,h 1 V ). Moreover, the following diagram commutes: (2.5) K 0 (V/Y) χ χ Z. f On the other hand we have that χ (X) χ (Z) + χ (X \ Z). Thus χ ( ) cannot be captured as a homomorphismχ : K 0 (V) Z. However, we have that χ (X idx X) = χ (Z iz,x X)+χ (X \Z i X\Z,X X).

4 4 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () Lemma 2.6. If we define χ ([V h X]) := χ(v,h ν X ), then we get the homomorphism χ : Z. Proof. Clearly the definition χ ([V h X]) := χ(v,h ν X ) is independent of the choice of the representative of the isomorphism class [V h X]. For a closed subvarietyw V, we have χ ([V h X] = χ(v,h ν X ) = χ(w,h ν X )+χ(v \W,h ν X ) = χ(w,h W ν X)+χ(V \W,h V\W ν X) = χ ([W h W X])+χ ([W h V \W X]). Thus we get the homomorphismχ : Z. Lemma 2.7. Iff : X Y satisfies the condition thatν X = f ν Y (such a morphism shall be called a Behrend morphism ), then the following diagram commutes: Proof. It is straightforward: f K 0 (V/Y) χ χ Z. χ f ([V h X]) = χ ([V f h X]) = χ(v,(f h) ν Y ) = χ(v,h f ν Y ) = χ(v,h ν X ) (sinceν X = f ν Y ) = χ ([V h X]).. Remark 2.8. An étale map is a typical example of a Behrend morphism. Remark 2.9. For a general morphism f : X Y, we have that f ν Y = ( 1) reldimf ν X + Θ(X sing f 1 (Y sing )), where reldimf := dimx dimy is the relative dimension of f and Θ(X sing f 1 (Y sing )) is some constructible functions supported on the singular locusx sing ofx and the inverse image of the singular locusy sing ofy. As then ν X = ( 1) dimx 1 X + some constructible function supported onx sing, f ν Y = ( 1) dimx f 1 Y +f (some constructible function supported ony sing ). Hence in general we have (χ f )([V h X]) = ( 1) reldimf χ ([V h X])+extra terms. To avoid taking care of the sign, let us introduce the twisted Behrend function ν X := ( 1) dimx ν X, which will be used later again. Note that if X is smooth, ν X = 1 X. Then we define the twisted Donaldson Thomas type invariant χ (X) by χ (X f Y) := χ(x,f ν Y ). Then for a morphismf : X Y we havef ν Y = ν X + Θ(X sing f 1 (Y sing )). In particular the above lemma is modified as follows:

5 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 5 Lemma If f : X Y satisfies the condition that ν X = f ν Y (such a morphism shall be called a twisted Behrend morphism ; a smooth morphism is a typical example for ν X = f ν Y ), then the following diagram commutes: χ f χ Z. K 0 (V/Y) 3. GENERALIZED DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE INVARIANTS OF MORPHISMS Mimicking the above definition of χ (X f Y) and ignoring the geometric or topological interpretation, we define the following. Definition 3.1. For a morphismf : X Y and a constructible functionδ Y F(Y) we define χ δy (X f Y) := χ(x,f δ Y ). Lemma 3.2. For a morphismf : X Y and a constructible functionα F(X) we have χ(x,α) = χ(y,f α). Corollary 3.3. For a morphismf : X Y and a constructible functionδ Y F(Y) we have χ(x,f δ Y ) = χ(y,f f δ Y ). Remark 3.4. For the constant mapπ X : X pt, the pushforward homomorphism π X : F(X) F(pt) = Z is nothing but the fact that π X (α) = χ(x,α) (by the definition of the pushforward). Hence, the above equalityχ(x,α) = χ(y,f α) is paraphrased as the commutativity of the following diagram: f F(X) F(Y) π X π Y F(pt) = Z. Namely, π X = (π Y f) = π Y f. This might suggest that F( ) is a covariant functor, but we need to be a bit careful. In fact, F( ) is certainly a covariant functor provided that the ground field K is of characteristic zero. However, if it is not of characteristic zero, then it may happen that (g f) g f, for which see Schürmann s example in [13]. Remark 3.5. If we define 1 : F(X) by 1 ([V h X]) := h 1 V, then for a morphism f : X Y we have the following commutative diagrams: f K 0 (V/Y) 1 F(X) F(Y) f π X π Y F(pt) = Z. (π X 1 )([V h X]) = χ([v h X]) and the outer triangle is nothing but the commutative diagram (2.5) mentioned before. 1

6 6 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () Here we emphasize that the above equalityχ(x,f δ Y ) = χ(y,f f δ Y ) have the following two aspects: The invariant on LHS for a morphism f : X Y is defined on the source space X. The invariant on RHS for a morphism f : X Y is defined on the target space Y. So, in order to emphasize the difference, we introduce the following notation: χ δy (X f Y) X := χ(x,f δ Y ) = χ(y,f f δ Y ) =: χ δy (X f Y) Y. Since we want to deal with higher class versions of the Donaldson Thomas type invariants and use the functoriality of the constructible function functorf( ), we assume that the ground field K is of characteristic zero. We consider MacPherson s Chern class transformationc : F(X) H BM (X), which is due to Kennedy [17]. For a morphismh : V X and for a constructible functionδ X F(X) on the target space X, we have c (h δ X ) = χ(v,h δ X ) = χ δx (V h X) V, X V c (h h δ X ) = χ(x,h h δ X ) = χ δx (V h X) X. Here c (h δ X ) H BM (X) on the side of the target space X. Hence when we want to deal with them as the homomorphism from to H BM On the other hand we denote Note that (V) on the side of the source space V and c (h h δ X ) H BM (X), we should consider the higher analoguesc (h h δ X ), which we denote by (V h X) := c (h h δ X ) H BM (X). c δx c δx (V h X) := c (h δ X ) H BM (V). c δx (V h X) = h (c δx (V h X)), for an isomorphism id X : X X, these two classes are identical and denoted simply by c δx (X) := c (δ X ) = c δx (X idx X) = c δx (X idx X). In the following sections we treat these two objects c δx (V h X) and c δx (V h X) separately, since they have different natures. 4. MOTIVIC ALUFFI-TYPE CLASSES For the twisted Behrend function ν X the Chern classc νx (X) is called the Aluffi class and denoted byc Al (X) (cf. [1]). Note that X cal (X) = ( 1)dimX χ (X). In [2] the untwisted onec νx (X) is called the Aluffi class, in which case X cνx (X) = χ (X). But for the sake of later presentation, we stick to the twisted one. In this sense, the Chern class c δx (V h X) defined above is called a generalized Aluffi class of a morphism h : V X associated to a constructible function δ X F(X). So the original Aluffi class isc νx idx (X X). Lemma 4.1. The following formulae hold: (1) IfV h X = V h X, i.e., there exists an isomorphismk : V = V such thath = h k, then we havec δx (V h X) = c δx (V h X). (2) For a closed subvarietyw V, c δx (V h X) = c δx (W h W X)+c δx (V \W h V \W X).

7 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 7 (3) For morphismsh i : V i X i (i = 1,2), c δx 1 δx 2 h (V 1 V 1 h 2 2 X1 X 2 ) = c δx 1 h (V 1 1 X1 ) c δx 2 h (V 2 2 X2 ). (4) c δpt (pt pt) = δ pt (pt) Z. Corollary 4.2. Let δ X F(X) be a constructible function. Then the following hold: (1) The mapc δx : H BM (X) defined by c δx ([V h X]) := c δx (V h X) = c (h h δ X ) and linearly extended is a well-defined homomorphism. (2) c δx commutes with the exterior product, i.e. for constructible functions δ Xi F(X i ) and forα i K 0 (V/X i ), c δx 1 δx 2 (α 1 α 2 ) = c δx 1 (α 1 ) c δx 2 (α 2 ). Remark 4.3. If δ X is some function well-defined on X such as the characteristic function 1 X, the Behrend function ν X, the twisted Behrend function ν X, and if it is multiplicative, i.e. δ X Y = δ X δ Y, then the above Corollary 4.2 (2) can be simply rewritten asc δx 1 X 2 (α 1 α 2 ) = c δx 1 (α 1 ) c δx 2 (α 2 ). Remark 4.4. If X is smooth, then we have c Al ([V h X]) = c (h h ν X ) = h c (h 1 X ) = h c (1 V ) = h c SM (V) is the pushforward of the Chern Schwartz MacPherson class of V, thus it depends on the morphismh : V X, although the degree zero part of it, i.e. the twisted Donaldson Thomas type invariant is nothing but the Euler characteristic of V, thus it does not depend on the morphism at all. Therefore the higher class version is more subtle. The part h h δ X can be formulated as follows. Given a constructible function δ X F(X), we define [δ X ] : F(X) by[δ X ]([V h X]) := h h δ X and extend it linearly. Note that 1 : F(X) is nothing but[1 X ] : F(X). It is straightforward to see the following. Lemma 4.5. For any morphism g : X Y and any constructible function δ Y F(Y), the following diagrams commute: [g δ Y ] F(X) g g, [δ Y ] F(Y). K 0 (V/Y) g [δ Y ] [g δ Y ] F(Y) g F(X). The following corollary follows from MacPherson s theorem [24] and our previous results [27, 30], and here we need the properness of the morphism g : X Y, since we deal with the pushforward homomorphism for the Borel Moore homology. c δx : H BM (X) is the composite of[δ X ] : F(X) and MacPherson s Chern classc, in particularc Al : H BM (X) isc Al = c [ ν X ]. Hence we have the following corollary: Corollary 4.6. (1) For a proper morphism g : X Y and any constructible function δ Y F(Y), the following diagram commutes: g c g δ Y H BM (X) g c δ Y H BM (Y).

8 8 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () (2) For a smooth morphism g : X Y with c(t g ) being the total Chern cohomology class of the relative tangent bundlet g of the smooth morphism andg : H BM (Y) H BM (X) the Gysin homomorphism ([10, Example ]), the following diagram commutes: K 0 (V/Y) g c δ Y H BM (Y) c(t g) g c g δ Y H BM (X). In particular we get the following theorem for the Aluffi class c Al : K 0 (V/ ) H BM ( ): Theorem 4.7. For a smooth proper morphism g : X Y the following diagrams commute: c Al H BM (X) g g c Al H BM (Y), c Al H BM (Y) g c(t g) g c Al H BM (X). They are respectively Grothendieck Riemann Roch type and a Verdier Riemann Roch type formulas. Remark 4.8. In the above theorem the smoothness of the morphism g : X Y is crucial and the Aluffi class homomorphism c Al : H BM (X) cannot be captured as a natural transformation in a full generality, i.e. natural for any morphism. Indeed, if it were the case, then c Al : K 0(V/ ) H BM ( ) H BM ( ) Q becomes a natural transformation such that for any smooth varietyy we have LetT y : K 0 (V/ ) H BM follows from [4] that c Al = T 1 : K 0(V/ ) H BM X, singular or non-singular, we have c Al idx ([X X]) = c(t X ) [X]. ( ) Q[y] be the motivic Hirzebruch class transformation [4]. Then it ( ) H BM c Al idx ([X X]) = c SM (X) = c (1 X ) ( ) Q, thus for any variety In particular X c (1 X ) = χ(x) the topological Euler Poincaré characteristic, which is a contradiction to the fact that c Al ([X idx X]) = ( 1) dimx χ (X). X Remark 4.9. In fact c 1 X is equal to the motivic Chern class transformation T 1 : K 0(V/X) H BM (X) H BM (X) Q. is certainly a ring with the following fiber product [V h X] [W k X] := [V X W h Xk X]. Proposition The operation h h δ X of pullback followed by pushforward of a constructible function makesf(x) a-module with the product[v h X] δ X := h h δ X. Namely, the following properties hold: ([V h X]+[W k X]) δ X = [V h X] δ X +[W k X] δ X. ([V h X] [W k X]) δ X = [V h X] ([W k X] δ X ). [V h X] (δ X +δ X ) = [V h X] δ X +[V h X] δ X.

9 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 9 Then the operation h h δ X gives rise to a map : F(X) F(X) and the composition c := c : F(X) H BM (X) of and MacPherson s Chern class transformationc is a kind of extension ofc. Lemma For any morphism g : X Y the following diagram commutes: K 0 (V/Y) F(Y) F(Y) g g g F(X) F(X). Corollary For a smooth morphism g : X Y the following diagram commutes: K 0 (V/Y) F(Y) g g c H BM (Y) c(t g) g F(X) c H BM (X). Remark Fix δ Y F(Y), the composite of the inclusion homomorphismi δy : K 0 (V/Y) K 0 (V/Y) F(Y) defined by i δy (α) := α δ Y and the map : K 0 (V/Y) F(Y) F(Y) is the homomorphism[δ Y ]; i δy = [δ Y ] : K 0 (V/F) F(Y). The right-hand-sided commutative diagram in Lemma 4.5 is the outer square of the following commutative diagrams: K 0 (V/Y) i δy K0 (V/Y) F(Y) F(Y) g g g g i g δy F(X) F(X). Furthermore, if g : X Y is smooth, we get the following commutative diagrams: K 0 (V/Y) i δy K0 (V/Y) F(Y) F(Y) c H BM(Y) g g g g c(t g) g i g δy F(X) F(X) c the outer square of which is the commutative diagram in Corollary 4.6 (2). H BM (X), Remark As to the pushforward we do knot know if there is a reasonable pushforward? : F(X) K 0 (V/Y) F(Y) such that the following diagram commutes: F(X) F(X)? g K 0 (V/Y) F(Y) F(Y). At the moment we can see only that the following diagrams commute: i g δy F(X) F(X) c H BM (X) g K 0 (V/Y) i δy K 0 (V/Y) F(Y) g F(Y) g c H BM (Y)

10 10 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () 5. NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES In this section we give a further generalization of the above generalized Aluffi class c δ (X), using the motivic Hirzebruch class transformationt y : K 0 (V/ ) H BM ( ) Q[y]. In the above argument, a key part is the operation of pullback-followed-by-pushforwardh h for a morphism h : V X on a fixed or chosen constructible function δ X of the target space X. It is quite natural to do the same operation on itself. For that purpose we need to define a motivic element δx mot K 0(V/X) corresponding to the constructible function δ X ; in particular we need to define a reasonable motivic element νx mot K 0(V/X) corresponding to the Behrend functionν X F(X). By considering the isomorphism 1 : Z(X) = F(X), 1( V n V[V]) := V n V 1 V, we define another distinguished integral cycle: D X := 1 1 (ν X ) ( = 1 1 Eu(C X ) ). Then we set νx mot := [D X X]. This can be put in as follows. Let s : F(X) be the section of 1 : F(X) defined by s(1 S ) := [S X]. Then νx mot = s(ν X ). Another way is νx mot := n n[ν 1 X (n) X] (see [9]). Remark 5.1. Obviously the homomorphism[1 X ] = 1 : F(X) is not injective and its kernel is infinite. In the case when X is the critical set of a regular function f : M C, then there is a notion of motivic element (which is called the motivic Donaldson Thomas invariant ) corresponding to the Behrend function (which is in this case described via the Milnor fiber), using the motivic Milnor fiber, due to Denef Loeser. In our general case, we do not have such a sophisticated machinery available, thus it seems to be natural to define a motivic elementνx mot naively as above. Let Ψ : be the fiber product mentioned before: ( ) Ψ [V h X] [W k X] := [V h X] [W k X] = [V X W h Xk X]. Since[δ X ] = i δx : i δ X K0 (V/X) F(X) F(X) withδ X F(X), we consider its motivic analogue, which means the following homomorphism [γ X ] : iγ X Ψ, where γ X and i γx : is defined by i γx (α) := α γ X. Proposition 5.2. Let γ X. Then the following diagram commutes: [γ X] [1 (γ X)] 1 F(X). Proof. Let γ X := [S hs X]. Then it suffices to show the following ( [ ]) ( )] 1 [S hs X] ([V h X]) = [1 [S hs X] ([V h X]). This can be proved using the fiber square V X S h S V h S h S h X.

11 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 11 ( [ ([ ] ) 1 [S hs X] ])([V h X]) = 1 [S hs X] ([V h X]) = 1 ([V X S h h S X]) = (h h S ) 1 V XS (by the definition of 1 ) = h hs 1 V XS = h hs h 1 S Corollary 5.3. (1) Let δ X F(X) and let δx mot Then we have = h h (h S ) 1 S (since h S h = h (h S ) ) = h h ( ) 1 ([S hs X]) ( )] = [1 [S hs X] ([V h X]). [γ X] [δ X] 1 F(X). The motivic elementδ mot X is called a naive motivic analogue ofδ X. (2) In particular, we have [ν X] K 0(V/X) be such that 1 (δ mot X ) = δ X. [ν mot X ] 1 F(X). Remark 5.4. Here we emphasize that the following diagrams commutes: [ν mot X ] T 1 [ν X] 1 F(X) H BM (X) Q. Thus, modulo the torsion and the choices of motivic elementsν mot X, the compositet 1 [νmot X ] is a higher class analogue of the Donaldson Thomas type invariant. Thus it would be natural or reasonable to generalize the Donaldson Thomas type invariant using the motivic Hirzebruch class T y. c Q Let γ X,γ Y K 0 (V/Y). Then for any morphism g : X Y the following diagrams commute: [γ X] i γx Ψ K0 (V/X) g g or g g g g [g γ X] K 0 (V/Y), i gγx K 0 (V/Y) Ψ K 0 (V/Y)

12 12 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () [g γ Y ] i g γy Ψ K0 (V/X) g g or g g g g [γ Y ] [g γ Y ] K 0 (V/Y),. i γy K 0 (V/Y) Ψ K 0 (V/Y) [γ Y ] i γy Ψ K 0 (V/Y) K0 (V/Y) K 0 (V/Y) g g or g g g g Hence we get the following corollary i g γy Ψ Corollary 5.5. (1) Let γ X,γ Y K 0 (V/Y). For a proper morphism g : X Y the following diagrams commute: g T y [γ X] K 0 (V/Y) T y [g γ X] H BM (X) Q[y] g H BM (Y) Q[y], g T y [g γ Y ] H BM (X) Q[y] g K 0 (V/Y) T y [γ Y ] H BM (Y) Q[y], (2) For a proper smooth morphismg : X Y and forγ Y K 0 (V/Y) the following diagrams are commutative: K 0 (V/Y) g T y [γ Y ] H BM (Y) Q[y] td y(t g) g T y [g γ Y ] H BM (X) Q[y]. (3) Let ν mot X := ( 1)dimX νx mot, the twisted one. Let T y smooth morphism g : X Y the following diagrams are commutative: := T y [ ν X mot ]. For a proper g T y H BM (X) Q[y] g K 0 (V/Y) g T y H BM (Y) Q[y] td y(t g) g T y H BM (Y) Q[y], T y H BM (X) Q[y]. Remark 5.6. The commutative diagram in Proposition 5.2 can be described in more details as follows: i γx Ψ id i 1X F(X) Ψ id F(X) id F(X) i 1X F(X) If we denote(α δ X ) simply byα δ X, then the bottom square on the right-hand-side commutative diagrams means that(α β) δ X = α (β δ X ), i.e. the associativity.

13 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 13 Remark 5.7. We remark that the following diagrams commute: (1) for a proper marphismg : X Y n {}}{ Ψ n 1 T y H BM(X) Q[y] g g g g K 0 (V/Y) K 0 (V/Y) }{{} n Ψ n 1 (2) for a proper smooth morphismg : X Y T y H BM (Y) Q[y], n {}}{ K 0 (V/Y) K 0 (V/Y) g g Ψ n 1 g T y H BM (X) Q[y] c(t g) g }{{} n Ψ n 1 T y H BM (X) Q[y], Here Ψ n 1 ([V X]) := [V X] [V X] is the fiber product of n copies of [V X]. When n = 1, Ψ 0 := id K0(V/X) is understood to be the identity. Let P(t) := a i t i Q[t] be a polynomial. Then we define the polynomial transformationψ P(t) : by Ψ P(t) ([V h X]) := a i Ψ i 1 ([V X]). Then we have the following commutative diagrams. (1) for a proper morphismg : X Y Ψ P(t) T y H BM (X) Q[y] g g g Ψ P(t) T y H BM (Y) Q[y], (2) for a proper smooth morphismg : X Y K 0 (V/Y) g Ψ P(t) g T y H BM (X) Q[y] c(t g) g Ψ P(t) T y H BM (X) Q[y], These are a motivic analogue of the corresponding case of constructible functions: (1) for a proper morphismg : X Y F P(t) c F(X) F(X) H BM (X) g g g F(Y) F P(t) F(Y) c H BM (Y)

14 14 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () (2) for a proper smooth morphismg : X Y F(Y) g F P(t) F(Y) g c H BM (Y) c(t g) g F(X) F P(t) F(X) c H BM (X) HereF P(t) (β) := a i β i. Note also that the following diagram commutes 1 Ψ P(t) 1 F(X) F P(t) F(X). Definition 5.8. (1) We refer to the following class T y (X) := ( ) id T y ([X X X]) = Ty ([ ν X mot ]) as the naive motivic Donaldson Thomas type Hirzebruch class ofx. (2) The degree zero of the naive motivic Donaldson Thomas type Hirzebruch class is called the naive motivic Donaldson Thomas typeχ y -genus ofx: χ y (X) := X T y (X). Remark 5.9. The cases of the three special valuesy = 1,0,1 are the following. (1) Fory = 1,T 1 (X) = T 1 ([ νmot X ]) = cal (X). (2) Fory = 0, T 0 (X) = T 0 ([ ν X mot ]) =: tdal (X), called an Aluffi-type Todd class ofx. (3) Fory = 1,T 1 (X) = T 1 ([ ν X mot ]) =: LAl (X), called an Aluffi-type Cappell Shaneson L-homology class ofx. The degree zero part of these three motivic classes are respectively: (1) fory = 1,χ 1 (X) = ( 1) dimx χ (X), the original Donaldson Thomas type invariant (i.e. Euler characteristic) ofx with the sign; (2) fory = 0,χ 0 (X) =: χ a (X), called a naive Donaldson Thomas type arithmetic geneus ofx and (3) fory = 1,χ 1 (X) = σ (X), called a naive Donaldson Thomas type signature ofx. Remark Since ν X (x) = 1 for a smooth point x X, we have that ν X = 1 X + α Xsing for some constructiblee functionsα Xsing supported on the singular locusx sing. For example, consider the simplest case thatx has one isolated singularityx 0, say ν X = 1 X +a 0 1 x0. Then ν mot X i x0 Herex 0 X is the inclusion. Hence we have idx i x0 = [X X]+a 0 [x 0 X] K0 (V/X). T y (X) = T y ( ν mot X ) = T y ([X idx i x0 X]+a 0 [x 0 X]) = T y (X)+a 0 (i x0 ) T y (x 0 ) = T y (X)+a 0. Thus the difference between the motivic type Hirzebruch classt y (X) and the motivic Hirzebruch class T y (X) is just a 0, independent of the parameter y. Of course, if dimx sing 1, then

15 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 15 the difference DOES depend on the parameter y. For example, for the sake of simplicity, assume that ν X = 1 X +a1 Xsing. Then the difference is T y (X) T y (X) = a(i Xsing ) T y (X sing ), which certainly depends on the parametery, at least for the degree zero part χ y (X sing ). If we take a different motivic element ν mot idx X = [X X] + [V h X] such that 1 ([V h X]) = a 0 1 x0 and dimv 1, then the difference T y (X) T y (X) = h (T y (V)), thus it DOES depend on the parametery, at least for the degree zero part, again. In the case whenx is the critical locus of a regular functionf : M C, the motivic invariant νx motivic which -theory people consider, using the motivic Milnor fiber, is the latter case, simply due to the important fact that the Behrend function can be expressed using the Milnor fiber. For example, as done in [8], even for an isolated singularity x 0, the difference T y (X) T y (X) is, up to sign, the χ y -genus of (the Hodge structure of) the Milnor fiber at the singularity x 0, so does depend on the parametery. So, as long as the Behrend function has some geometric or topological descriptions, e.g., such as Milnor fibers, then one could think of the corresponding motivic elements in a naive or canonical way. We will hope to come back to properties of these two classes td Al (X), L Al (X) and χ a (X), σ (X) and discussion on some relations with other invariants of singularities. Remark In [8] Cappell et al. use the Hirzebruch class transformation MHMT y : K 0 (MHM(X)) H BM (X) Q[y,y 1 ] from the Grothendieck groupk 0 (MHM(X)) of the category of mixed Hodge modules (introduced by Morihiko Saito), instead of the Grothendieck group. We could do the same things on MHMT y : K 0 (MHM(X)) H BM (X) Q[y,y 1 ] and getmhm-theoretic analogues of the above. We hope to get back to this calculation. Remark In [12] Göttsche and Shende made an application of the motivic Hirzebruch class T y. Remark In a successive paper, we intend to apply the motivic Hirzebruch transformation to the motivic vanishing cycle constructed on the Donaldson Thomas moduli space and announced in [5, 7]. This will hopefully provide the right motivic Donaldson Thomas type Hirzebruch class. 6. A BIVARIANT GROUP OF PULLBACKS OF CONSTRUCTIBLE FUNCTIONS AND A BIVARIANT-THEORETIC PROBLEM In the above section we mainly dealt with the classc δx (V h X) ofh : V X supported on the target spacex. In this section we deal with the class c δx (V h X) ofh : V X supported on the source space V. The class c δx (V h X) is by definition c (h h δ X ) = h c (h δ X ) H BM (X), and can be captured as the image of the homomorphism from two abelian groups assigned to the space X. However, when it comes to the case ofc δx (V h X) H BM (V), one cannot do it. So we approach this class from a bivariant-theoretic viewpoint as follows. For a morphism f : X Y and a constructible function δ Y F(Y), we define F δy (X f Y) as follows: { } F δy (X f Y) := a S i S i S S f δ Y are closed subvarieties ofx,as Z, S

16 16 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () where i S : S X is the inclusion map. For the sake of simplicity, unless some confusion is possible, we simply denotei S (i S ) f δ Y by(f S ) δ Y (= (i S ) f δ Y ). In particular, let us consider the twisted Behrend function ν Y as δ Y, i.e., F νy (X f Y), which shall be denoted by F Beh (X f Y). It is easy to see the following lemma. Lemma 6.1. (1) If Y is smooth, thenf Beh (X f Y) = F(X). (2) If Y is singular andf(x) Y sing =,F Beh (X f Y) = F(X). (3) If Y is singular andf(x) Y sing,f Beh (X f Y) F(X). (4) F Beh (X π pt) = F(X). (5) If X is smooth,f Beh (X idx X) = F(X). (6) If X is singular, then F Beh (X idx X) F(X) and in particular, the characteristic function 1 X F Beh (X idx X). In order to show thatf Beh (X f Y) is a bivariant theory in the sense of Fulton and MacPherson [11], first we quickly recall some basics about Fulton MacPherson s bivariant theory. Definition 6.2. A bivariant theorybon a categoryc is an assignment to each morphism in the category C a (graded) abelian group X f Y B(X f Y), which is equipped with the following three basic operations: (i) for morphismsx f Y andy g Z, the product operation : B(X f Y) B(Y g Z) B(X gf Z) is defined; (ii) for morphismsx f Y andy g Z with f proper, the pushforward operation is defined; (iii) for a fiber square is defined. X g f f : B(X gf Z) B(Y g Z) X f Y g Y, the pullback operation g : B(X f Y) B(X f Y ) These three operations are required to satisfy the seven axioms which are natural properties to make them compatible each other: (B1) product is associative; (B2) pushforward is functorial; (B3) pullback is functorial; (B4) product and pushforward commute; (B5) product and pullback commute; (B6) pushforward and pullback commute; (B7) projection formula.

17 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 17 Definition 6.3. Let B and B be two bivariant theories on a categoryc. Then a Grothendieck transformation frombto B γ : B B is a collection of morphisms B(X f Y) B (X f Y) for each morphismx f Y in the categoryc, which preserves the above three basic operations. As to the constructible functions we recall the following fact from [31]: Theorem 6.4. If we define F(X f Y) := F(X) (ignoring the morphism f), then it become a bivariant theory, called the simple bivariant theory of constructible functions with the following three bivariant operations: (bivariant product) : F(X f Y) F(Y g Z) F(X gf Z), α β := α f β. (bivariant pushforward) For morphismsf : X Y andg : Y Z with f proper (bivariant pullback) For a fiber square f : F(X gf Z) F(Y g Z) f α := f α. X f X g f Y g Y, g : F(X f Y) F(X f Y ) g α := (g ) α. Theorem 6.5. Here we consider the category of complex algebraic varieties. Then the above group F Beh (X f Y)becomes a bivariant theory as a subgroup or subtheory of the above simple bivariant theoryf(x f Y), provided that we consider smooth morphismsg for the bivariant pullback. Proof. All we have to do is to show that those three bivariant operations are well-defined or stable on the subgroup F Beh (X f Y). Below, as to bivariant product and bivariant pushforward, we do not need the requirement that δ Y is the Behrend functionν Y, but we need it for bivariant pullback. (1) (bivariant product) It suffices to show that (f S ) δ Y (g W ) δ Z = (f S ) δ Y f (g W ) δ Z F δz (X gf Z). Since (f S ) δ Y is a constructible function on S, (f S ) δ Y = V a V 1 V where V s are subvarieties ofs, hence subvarieties ofx. Thus we get (f S ) δ Y f (g W ) δ Z = V a V 1 V (gf f 1 (W)) δ Z = V a V (gf f 1 (W) V) δ Z Sincef 1 (W) V is a finite union of subvarieties, it follows that(f S ) δ Y f (g W ) δ Z F δz (X gf Z).

18 18 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () (2) (bivariant pushforward) It suffices to show that f ((gf S ) δ Z ) F δz (Y g Z). More precisely, f ((gf S ) δ Z ) = f (i S ) (f S ) g δ Z ) = (f S ) (f S ) g δ Z. Now it follows from Verdier s result [29, (5.1) Corollaire] that the morphismf S : S Y is a stratified submersion, more precisely there is a filtration of closed subvarietiesv 1 V 2 V m Y such that the restriction off S to each stratav i+1 \V i, i.e.,(f S ) 1 (V i+1 \V i ) V i+1 \V i is a fiber bundle. Hence the operation(f S ) (f S ) is the same as the multiplication ( i a i1 Vi ) with some integersa i s, i.e., (f S ) (f S ) g δ Z = ( i a i 1 Vi ) g δ Z = i a i (g Vi ) δ Z F δz (Y g Z). (3) (bivariant pullback) Here we show that the following is well-defined Consider the following fiber squares: Indeed, g : F δy (X f Y) F g δ Y (X f Y ). i S S i S S g X f X g f Y g Y. g ((f S ) δ Y ) = (g ) ((f S ) δ Y (by definition) = (g ) ((i S ) (f S ) δ Y (more precisely) = (i S ) (g ) (i S ) f δ Y = (i S ) (i S ) (f ) g δ Y F g δ Y (X f Y ) Hence, if we take the twisted Behrend function ν Y, for a smooth morphismg : Y Y we have ν Y = g ν Y. Problem 6.6. Can one define a bivariant homology theory H(X Y) such that (1) H(X f Y) H BM (X) for any morphismf : X Y, (2) H(X Y) = H BM (X) for a smoothy, (3) the MacPherson s Chern class c : F Beh (X f Y) H(X f Y) defined by c (i S i S f ν Y ) := i S c (i S f ν Y ) H BM (X) and extended linearly, becomes a Grothendieck transformation. (4) if Y is a pointpt, then c : F(X) = F Beh (X f pt) H(X f pt) = H BM (X) is equal to the original MacPherson s Chern class homomorphism.

19 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 19 Remark 6.7. One simple-minded construction of such a bivariant homology theory H(X Y) could be simply the image of F Beh (X f Y) under the MacPherson s Chern class c : F(X) H BM (X): H(X Y) := c (F Beh (X f Y)). Before closing this section, we mention a bivariant-theoretic analogue of the covariant functor of conical Lagrangian cycles. In [17] Kennedy proved that Ch : F(X) = L(X) is an isomorphism. In general, suppose we have a correspondence H such that H assigns an abelian grouph(x) to a varietyx there is an isomorphismθ X : F(X) = H(X). Then, if we define the pushforwardf : H(X) H(Y) for a mapf : X Y by f H := H f F H 1 : H(X) H(Y) then the correspondence H becomes a covariant functor via the covariant functor F. Here f F : F(X) F(Y), emphasizing the covariant functor F. Similary, if we define the pullback f : H(Y) H(X) by fh := H f F H 1 : H(Y) H(X) then the correspondence H becomes a contravariant functor via the contravariant functor F. Here ff : F(Y) F(X). Furthermore, if we define BH(X f Y) := H(X) then we get the simple bivariant-theoretic version of the correspondenceh as follows: (Bivariant product) BH : BH(X f Y) BH(Y g Z) BH(X gf Z) is defined by ( ) α BH β := H H 1 (α) F H 1 (β). (Bivariant pushforward)f BH : BH(X gf Z) BH(Y g Z) is defined by f BH := H f F H 1. (Bivariant pullback)g BH : BH(X f Y) BH(X f Y ) is defined by g BH := H f F H 1. Clearly we get the canonical Grothendieck transformation γ Θ = Θ : F(X f Y) BH(X f Y). If we apply this argument to the conical Lagrangian cycle L(X) we get the simple bivariant theory of conical Lagrangian cycles L(X f Y) and also we get the canonical Grothendieck transformation γ Ch = Ch : F(X f Y) L(X f Y). This simple bivariant theory L(X f Y) can be defined or constructed directly as done in [6], in which one has to go through many geometric and/or topological ingredients. The Fulton MacPherson s bivariant theory F FM (X f Y) is a subgroup (or a subtheory) of the simple bivariant theoryf(x f Y) = F(X). Then if we define L FM (X f Y) := γ Ch (F FM (X f Y))

20 20 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () then we can get a finer bivariant theory of conical Lagrangian cycles, putting aside the problem of how we define or describe such a finer bivariant-theoretic conical Lagrangian cycle; it would be much harder than the case of the simple onel(x f Y) done in [6]. 7. SOME MORE QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS 7.1. A categorification of Donaldson Thomas type invariant of a morphism. The cardinality c(f) of a finite set F, i.e., the number of elements off, satisfies that (1) X = X (set-isomorphism)= c(x) = c(x ), (2) c(x) = c(y)+c(x \Y) for a subsety X (a scissor relation), (3) c(x Y) = c(x) c(y), (4) c(pt) = 1. Now, let us suppose that there is a similar cardinality on a category T OP of certain reasonable topological spaces, satisfying the above four properties, except for the condition (1) and (2), (1) X = X (T OP-isomorphism)= c(x) = c(x ), (2) c(x) = c(y)+c(x \Y) for a closed subsety X. (3) c(x Y) = c(x) c(y), (4) c(pt) = 1. If such a topological cardinality exists, then we can show thatc(r 1 ) = 1, hencec(r n ) = ( 1) n. Thus, for a finite CW -complex X, c(x) is exactly the Euler Poincaré characteristic χ(x). The existence of such a topological cardinality is guaranteed by the ordinary homology theory, more precisely c(x) = χ c (X) := ( 1) i dim R H i c(x;r) = i ( 1) i dim R Hi BM (X;R). HereH BM (X) is the Borel Moore homology group of X. Similarly let us suppose that there is a similar cardinality on the categoryv C of complex algebraic varieties: (1) X = X (V C -isomorphism)= c(x) = c(x ), (2) c(x) = c(y) + c(x \ Y) for a closed subvariety Y X (i.e., a closed subset in Zariski topology), (3) c(x Y) = c(x) c(y), (4) c(pt) = 1. We cannot do the same trick as we do for the abovec(r 1 ) = 1. The existence of such an algebraic cardinality is guaranteed by Deligne s theory of mixed Hodge structures. Let u, v be two variables, then the Deligne Hodge polynomialχ u,v is defined by χ u,v (X) = ( 1) i dim C Gr p F GrW p+q (Hi c (X;C))up v q. In particular, χ u,v (C 1 ) = uv. The partiuclar case when u = y,v = 1 is the important one for the motivic Hirzebruch class:χ y (X) := χ y,1 (X) = ( 1) i dim C Gr p F (Hi c(x;c))( y) p. This is called χ y -genus ofx. Similarly let us consider the Donaldson Thomas type invariant of morphisms: (1) X f Y = X f Y (isomorphism)= χ (X f Y) = χ (X f Y), (2) χ (X f Y) = χ (Z f Z Y) + χ (X \ Z f X\Z Y) for a closed subvariety Z X. (3) χ f 1 f 2 (X 1 X 2 Y1 Y 2 ) = χ f 1 (X 1 Y1 ) χ f 2 (X 2 Y2 ), (4) χ (pt) = 1.

21 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 21 So, just like the above two cardinalities or counting χ c (X) and χ u,v (X), we pose the following problem, which is related to the above Problem 6.6: Problem 7.1. Is there some kind of bivariant theoryθ? (X f Y) such that (1) χ (X f Y) = i ( 1)i dimθ? (X f Y)? (2) When Y is smooth, Θ(X f Y) is (or should be) isomorphic to the Borel Moore homology theory H BM (X) (which is isomorphic to the Fulton MacPherson bivariant homology theoryh(x f Y)). Remark 7.2. (1) When Y is smooth, we have χ (X f Y) = ( 1) dimy χ(x), that is χ (X f Y) = ( 1) dimy i ( 1)i dimhi BM (X) = ( 1) dimy i ( 1)i dimh i (X f Y). In the above formulation χ (X f Y) = i ( 1)i dimθ? (X f Y) the sign part ( 1) i should get involve something of the morphismf as well. (2) Even for the identityx idx X, sinceχ (X) χ (Z)+χ (X\Z), the cohomological part Θ(X idx X) of such a theory (if it existed) does not satisfy the usual long exact sequence for a pairz X, and it should satisfy a modified one so that is correct. χ (X) = χ (Z inclusion X)+χ (X \Z inclusion X) 7.2. A higher class analogue of MNOP conjecture and a generalized MacMahon function. In [22] M. Levine and R. Pandharipnade showed the MNOP conjecture [25], which is nothing but the homomorphism M(q) : Ω 3 (pt) Q[[q]], defined by M(q)([X]) := M(q) X c3(tx KX), whereω (X) is Levine Morel s algebraic cobordism [21] (also see [20] and [22]) and M(q) := 1 (1 q n ) n = 1+q +3q2 +6q 3 +13q 4 + n 1 is the MacMahon function. A naive question on the above homomorphismm(q) : Ω 3 (pt) Q[[q]] is: Question 7.3. To what extent could one extend the homomorphism M(q) : Ω 3 (pt) Q[[q]] to a higher dimensional variety Y instead of Y = pt being the point? Namely, could one get the homomorphism M(q) : Ω (Y) H BM (Y) Q[[q]] defined by M(q)([X f Y]) := M(q) f(c dimx dim Y (T f K f ) [X])? Here by the construction of the algebraic cobordism X and Y are both smooth, T f := T X f T Y andk f := K X f K Y. Note that for Y = pt the above M(q) : Ω (Y) H BM (Y) Q[[q]] is nothing but M(q) : Ω 3 (pt) Q[[q]] in the case whendimx = 3. The MacMahon function has a combinatorial origin as the generating function for the number of 3-dimensional partitions of size n (as explained in [20]). It is speculative that the MacMahon function is involved only in the case whendimx dimy = 3. If it were the case, the following more specific problem should be posed: Problem 7.4. Could one get the homomorphism M(q) : Ω 3 (Y) H BM (Y) Q[[q]] defined by M(q)([X f Y]) := M(q) f(c3(t f K f ) [X])?

22 22 VITTORIA BUSSI () AND SHOJI YOKURA () Remark 7.5. Note that the dimension d of an element [X f Y] Ω d (Y) means that d = codimf = dimy dimx, hence if Y = pt, then dimx = 3 implies that d = 3. Moreover, for a general dimension d, say d < 3, one should come with some other functions, i.e. d-dimensional generalized MacMahon function M(q) d such that when d = 3 it is the same as the original MacMahon functionm(q), i.e. M(q) 3 = M(q). Such a formulation would be useful in Donaldson Thomas theory for d-calabi Yau manifolds with d > 3. However, we have to point out that the above function M(q) d for the generating function of dimensiondpartitions is now known to be not correct, although it does appear to be asymptotically correct in dimension four [3, 26]. Following ideas from algebraic cobordism as in [22], we hope to investigate further in this direction in a future work. 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Some parts of the paper are based on what we observed or thought during the AIM Workshop Motivic Donaldson Thomas Theory and Singularity Theory held at the Renyi Institute, Budapest, Hungary, May 7 May 11, We would like to express our sincere thanks to the organizers, Jim Bryan, András Némethi, Davesh Maulik, Jörg Schürmann, Balázs Szendrői, and Ágnes Szilárd for a wonderful organization and to the AIM for financial support for our participation at the workshop. We also would like to thank Balázs Szendrői, Dominic Joyce, Laurentiu Maxim, Jörg Schürmann and Vivek Shende for valuable comments and suggestions. REFERENCES [1] P. Aluffi, Weighted Chern-Mather classes and Milnor classes of hypersurfaces, In Singularities - Sapporo 1998, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., Kinokuniya, Tokyo, 2000, [2] K. Behrend, Donaldson Thomas type invariants via microlocal geometry, Ann. of Math. (2) 170 (2009), no. 3, , [3] K. Behrend, J. Bryan and B. Szendrői, Motivic degree zero Donaldson Thomas invariant, arxiv:math/ [4] J.-P. Brasselet, J. Schürmann and S. Yokura, Hirzebruch classes and motivic Chern classes for singular spaces, Journal of Topology and Analysis, Vo1. 2, No.1 (2010), [5] C. Brav, V. Bussi, D. Dupont, D. Joyce and B.Szendrői, Symmetries and stabilization for sheaves of vanishing cycles, arxiv: v1 [math.ag] [6] V. Bussi, Donaldson Thomas theory and its extensions, September, 2011, preprint, theses/bussiprs.pdf [7] V. Bussi, D. Joyce, S. Meinhardt, Categorification in Donaldson Thomas theory using motivic vanishing cycles, in preparation, January [8] S. Cappell, L. Maxim, J. Schürmann and J.Shaneson, Characteristic classes of complex hypersurfaces, Adv. Math. 225 (2010), no. 5, [9] B. Davison, Orientation data in Motivic Donaldson Thomas theory, A thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D, University of Oxford, arxiv: v3 [math.ag] 25 Oct [10] W. Fulton, Intersection theory, Springer Verlag (1984) [11] W. Fulton and R. MacPherson, Categorical frameworks for the study of singular spaces, Memoirs of Amer. Math. Soc. 243, [12] L. Göttsche and V. Shende, Refined curve counting on complex surfaces, arxiv: [math.ag] [13] D. Joyce, Constructible functions on Artin stacks, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 74 (2006), [14] D. Joyce, Motivic invariants of Artin stacks and stack functions, Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 58 (2007), [15] D. Joyce, Generalized Donaldson Thomas invariants, in Geometry of special holonomy and related topics, Surveys in Differential Geometry XVI (Ed. by N.C. Leung and S.-T. Yau), International Press, Cambridge, MA,(2011), , [16] D. Joyce and Y. Song, A theory of generalized Donaldson Thomas invariants, Memoirs of the AMS, 217 (2012), pages [17] G. Kennedy, MacPherson s Chern classes of singular algebraic varieties, Comm. Algebra 18, No. 9 (1990), [18] M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman, Stability structures, motivic Donaldson Thomas invariants and cluster transformations, in Mirror symmetry and tropical geometry, 55 89, Contemp. Math., 527, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, [19] M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman, Motivic Donaldson Thomas invariants: summary of results, in Mirror Symmetry and Tropical Geometry, Contemporary Mathematics 527 (2010) (Ed. R. Castano-Bernard, Y. Soibelma and I. Zharkov), arxiv: , 2009.

23 NAIVE MOTIVIC DONALDSON THOMAS TYPE HIRZEBRUCH CLASSES 23 [20] M. Levine, A survey of algebraic cobordism, UCLA Colloquium, January 22, 2009 [21] M. Levine and F. Morel, Algebraic Cobordism, Springer Monographs in Math., Springer-Verlag, 2007, [22] M. Levine and R.Pandharipande, Algebraic Cobordism Revisited, Inventiones Math., 176 (2009), [23] E. Looijenga, Motivic measures, Séminaire Bourbaki 874, Astérisque 276 (2002), [24] R. MacPherson, Chern classes for singular algebraic varietes, Ann. of Math. 100 (1974), [25] D. Maulik, N. Nekrasov, A. Okounkov and R. Pandharipande, Gromov Witten theory and Donaldson Thomas theory. I., Compos. Math. 142 (2006), [26] V. Mustonen and R. Rajesh, Numerical estimation of the asymptotic behavior of solid partitions of an integer, J. Physics. A, 36(24) (2003), [27] J. Schürmann, A generalized Verdier-type Riemann-Roch theorem for Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson classes, preprint, arxiv:math.ag/ [28] R. P. Thomas, Gauge theories on Calabi-Yau manifolds, D. Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, [29] J.-L. Verdier, Stratifications de Whitney et thórème de Bertini Sard, Inventiones Math., 36 (1976), [30] S. Yokura, On a Verdier-type Riemann-Roch for Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson class, Topology and its Appl. 94 (1999), [31] S. Yokura, Bivariant Theories of Constructible Functions and Grothendieck Transformations, Topology and Its Applications, Vol. 123 (2002), VITTORIA BUSSI: THE MATHEMATICAL INSTITUTE, ST. GILES, OXFORD, OX1 3LB, U.K. address: bussi@maths.ox.ac.uk SHOJI YOKURA: DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE, FACULTY OF SCIENCE, KAGOSHIMA UNIVERSITY, KORIMOTO 1-CHOME, KAGOSHIMA , JAPAN address: yokura@sci.kagoshima-u.ac.jp