. 42
( 44 .)


from CP1 .
The ¬rst examples of hyper-K¨hler manifolds can be already met
in real dimension 4. Apart from the obvious example of the Euclidean
space R4 , there is the 4-torus T 4 with the ¬‚at metric induced by the
covering R4 ’ T 4 . Another example of a compact 4-dimensional hyper-
K¨hler manifold will be a K3-surface, where the existence of hyper-
K¨hler structure was proved by S.T. Yau.

Now let Σ be a complete Riemann surface and let

MC (Σ) := Homirr (π1 (Σ), GC )/GC

be the moduli space of irreducible GC -representations of the fundamen-
tal group of Σ, which is a smooth manifold. It was established by
Hitchin [34] that the space MC (Σ) has natural hyper-K¨hler structure.
In fact, one complex structure (let us call it I) can be seen right away
and is induced from the complex structure on GC . Another complex
structure J appears when we make the identi¬cation between MC (Σ)
and the smooth part of the moduli space of (semi-stable) Higgs bundles
with the vanishing ¬rst Chern class on Σ, which is naturally a complex
Now let X ’ CPM be a projective manifold and let MC (X) be
the moduli space of irreducible GC -representations of π1 (X). We will
think that MC (X) is a smooth manifold. As we have seen, for this it
is enough to require the vanishing of the cup-product

H 1 (X, ˜) — H 1 (X, ˜) ’ H 2 (X, ˜).
g g g

If X is of (complex) dimension n then let us consider the intersection
Σ of X with (n ’ 1) hyperplanes in CPM . The projective manifold Σ
is a smooth Riemann surface and each loop in S can be considered as
a loop in X too. Moreover, by a theorem of Lefschetz the natural map
ξ : π1 (S) ’ π1 (X) is surjective. This means that each loop in X is
homotopic to one in S. The map ξ induces an embedding of manifolds
MC (X) ’ MC (Σ). This embedding is compatible with complex and
K¨hler structures, and therefore MC (X) has a hyper-K¨hler structure
a a
too. It was proven by Fujiki [26] that the moduli space MC (X) has a
hyper-K¨hler structure for a general K¨hler manifold X (not necessarily
a a
At the end of this section, we provide another important example
of hyper-K¨hler manifolds due to Kronheimer [40]. Let gC be the Lie
algebra of GC and g— be the dual space to gC . The group GC acts on the
complex Lie algebra gC by the adjoint representation. In terms of the
usual representation of GC as the multiplicative group of complex r — r
invertible matrices and gC as the algebra of all complex r — r matrices,
C ∈ GC acts on x ∈ gC as CxC ’1 . If A ∈ g— , then A is just a linear

functional on the space gC . Then we de¬ne the coadjoint action of GC
(C —¦ A)(x) = A(C ’1 xC), x ∈ gC , C ∈ GC .
The space g— is then strati¬ed by the orbits of gC -action, and each orbit
is a hyper-K¨hler manifold.

5.11 Monodromy groups
In this section we shall discuss works of Simpson and others which
throw a bridge between complex variations of Hodge structures and
moduli spaces of representations of fundamental groups of compact
K¨hler manifolds in the context of non-abelian Hodge theory. There is
a natural action of the group C— on the space of Higgs bundles. The
action is easy to describe: » ∈ C— maps (W, ¦ ) to (W, »¦ ). This
important C— -action plays similar rˆle to the action of C— on the usual
LEMMA 5.11.1 The Higgs bundle (W, »¦ ) is isomorphic to (W, ¦ )
for all » ∈ C— if and only if there exists a decomposition
W i s.t. ¦ W i ‚ W i’1 — „¦1 (X).

Let us recall that if (V, ) is a complex variation of Hodge structure
on our K¨hler manifold X then as a C ∞ vector bundle V is isomorphic
to V = •V p , where V r = F r /F r’1 and F r is as in 5.9.9 then ¦ from
5.9.8 and the Gri¬ths transversality give us exactly

¦ V r ‚ V r’1 — „¦1 (X).

Now if we take the correspondence between representations of π1 (X)
(or, equivalently, ¬‚at bundles on X) and Higgs bundles previously noted
by us then the above Lemma amounts to
PROPOSITION 5.11.2 [51] A ¬‚at bundle (V, ) (corresponding to
a semi-simple representation of π1 (X)) is a complex variation of Hodge
structure if and only if the corresponding Higgs bundle (W, ¦ ) is iso-
morphic to (W, »¦ ) for all » ∈ C— .

We see that this property of Higgs bundles simply tells us that the C—
action on the moduli space MHiggs of (semi-stable) Higgs bundles with
vanishing Chern classes has a ¬xed point - the isomorphism class of
(W, ¦ ).
It happens next that the correspondence between Higgs bundles and
¬‚at bundles as well as the C— -action on MHiggs are both functorial with
respect to holomorphic mappings between two K¨hler manifolds.

THEOREM 5.11.3 [51] Let f : Y ’ X be a holomorphic mapping
between two compact K¨hler manifolds such that the induced map of
fundamental groups
f— : π1 (Y ) ’ π1 (X)
is surjective. Then a ¬‚at bundle (V, ) on X is a complex variation of
Hodge structure if and only if (f — V, f — ) is.

In spite of the obvious non-compactness of the space MHiggs it turns
out that the action of C— extends to an action of C [51]. We can conclude
from this that the limit

(W0 , ¦0 ) = lim [(W, »¦ )]

is a point of MHiggs and the Higgs bundle (W0 , ¦0 ) is clearly C— -
invariant. From this and the above Proposition Simpson concludes:

THEOREM 5.11.4 If X is a projective manifold, then every con-
nected component of H 1 (X, GC ) contains a class [ρ] of a representation
ρ such that the corresponding ¬‚at bundle (V, ) is a complex variation
of Hodge structure.

If we assume that a representation ρ of π1 (X) is rigid, meaning that
every smooth one-parameter family of representations ρt , 0 ¤ t ¤ 1
starting at ρ0 = ρ has the property that ρ1 is conjugate to ρ, then
it follows that [ρ] is a connected component of H 1 (X, GC ) and thus
the corresponding ¬‚at bundle (V, ) is a complex variation of Hodge
structure. These circumstances allowed Simpson to draw some conclu-
sions regarding which groups can not occur as fundamental groups of
compact K¨hler manifolds. We shall call such groups NFGK (Not the
Fundamental Group of a compact K¨hler manifold). The ¬rst steps

in this direction were made by Siu [54] and Sampson [49] who used
harmonic analysis on compact K¨hler manifolds to get such topological
restrictions. We should also mention an empirical rule (which also has
strong supportive arguments) that a ¬nitely generated group is generi-
cally NFGK if in a minimal set of generators and relations the number
of generators exceeds by far the number of relations.
Returning to exact science, a result of Carlson and Toledo [14] tells
us that a group is NFGK if it is a discrete cocompact lattice in SO(n, 1).
We need the following de¬nition due to Simpson

DEFINITION 5.11.5 A real Lie group G is said to be of Hodge type
if it occurs as the real Zariski closure of the monodromy group of a
complex variation of Hodge structure.

This can be formulated in terms of Lie theory: a group G is of Hodge
type if there is an action of C— on GC such that U (1) preserves G and
the element ’1 is a Cartan involution. We recall (chapter II) that
the correspondence between ¬‚at bundles on X and representations of
π1 (X) occurs exactly via the monodromy representations π1 (X) ’ G.
Therefore a rigid lattice in a group which is not of Hodge type is NFGK.
The combinatorics of the Dynkin diagrams allows one to decide whether
a group is of Hodge type. Let us list some of the simple groups which
are not of Hodge type [51]:
Sl(n, R), n > 2.
SU — (2n), n > 2.
SO(p, q), p, q odd.
Any complex group.
Thus, for example any cocompact lattice in these groups (like SL(n, Z)
for n > 2) is NFGK.
We also have to mention that the technique of taking the Malcev
completion of a discrete group and applying real homotopy theory ap-
proach (originated by Sullivan, see also [17], and Morgan [43]) gives
many more examples of the groups which are NFGK (see [1] chapter
3 for a comprehensive report on this topic). Kapovich and Millson in
[36] exhibit in¬nitely many Artin groups which are NFGK.

[1] J. Amor´s, M. Burger, K. Corlette, D. Kotschick and D. Toledo,
Fundamental groups of compact K¨hler manifolds, Math. Surveys
and Monographs, 44, AMS, 1996
[2] M. Artin, On the solution of analytic equations, Inv. Math., 5,
1968, 277-291
[3] M. Atiyah and R. Bott. The Yang-Mills Equations over a Rie-
mann Surface. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc, A308, 523 (1982)
[4] M. Atiyah, The geometry and physics of knots, Cambridge U.
Press, 1990
[5] M. Atiyah, Vector bundles over an elliptic curve, Proc. London
Math.Soc., 7, 1957, 414-452
[6] A. Beauville, Fibr´s de rang 2 sur les courbes, ¬br´ d´terminant
e ee
et fonctions thˆta II, Bull. Soc. math. France 119, 1991, 259-291
[7] I. Bernstein, I. Gelfand, and S. Gelfand, Algebraic bundles over
Pn and problems of linear algebra, Func. An. and Appl., 12, no.
3, 1978, 212-214
[8] O. Biquard, Fibr´s paraboliques stables et connexions singuli`res
e e
plates, Bull. Soc. Math. France, 119, 1991, 231-257
[9] T. Bloom and M. Herrera, De Rham cohomology of an analytical
space, Invent. Math., 7, 1969, 275-296
[10] J.-L. Brylinski, Loop spaces, characteristic classes and geometric
quantization, Birkh¨user, Progress in Mathematics, 107, 1993


[11] J.-L. Brylinski and P. A. Foth, Moduli of ¬‚at bundles on open
K¨hler manifolds, preprint, alg-geom/9703011, 1997

[12] J.-L. Brylinski and S. Zucker, An overview of recent advances in
Hodge theory, Encyclopaedia of Math. Sc., 69, Several Complex
Variables VI, Springer-Verlag, 1990, 39-142
[13] E. Calabi, Metriques k¨hl´riennes et ¬br´s holomorphes, Ann. Ec.
ae e
Norm. Sup. 12, 1979, 269-294

[14] J. Carlson and D. Toledo, Harmonic mappings of K¨hler mani-
folds to locally symmetric spaces, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S., 69, 1989,

[15] K. Chandrasekharan, Arithmetical functions, Grundlernen der
Mathematische Wissenschaft, 167, Springer-Verlag, 1970

[16] K. Corlette. Nonabelian Hodge Theory. Proc. Symp. Pure
Math.,54, 2, 1993, 125-144.

[17] P. Deligne, Ph. Gri¬ths, J. Morgan and D. Sullivan, Real homo-
topy theory of K¨hler manifolds, Invent. Math., 29, 1975, 245-274

[18] P. Deligne, Equations Di¬´rentielles ` Points Singuli`rs
e a e
R´guliers, Lect. Not. in Math. 163, Springer-Verlag, 1970

[19] P. Deligne, Un th`or´me de ¬nitude pour la monodromie, Discrete
groups in Geometry and Analysis (in the Honor of G. Mostow),
Progress in Math., 67, Birkh¨user, 1987, 1-19

[20] P. Deligne, Formes modulaires et repr´sentations l-adiques, Ex-
pos´ au S´minaire Bourbaki no. 355, February 1969, in Lect.
e e
Notes in Math. 179, Springer-Verlag, 1970

[21] P. Deligne and G. Mostow, Monodromy of hypergeometric func-
tions and non-lattice integral monodromy, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S.,
63, 1986, 5-90

[22] S. K. Donaldson, A new proof of a theorem of Narasimhan and
Seshadri, J. Di¬. Geom. 18, 1983, 269-277


. 42
( 44 .)