Wild ramification and \(K(\pi , 1)\) spaces
 1.2k Downloads
Abstract
We prove that every connected affine scheme of positive characteristic is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) space for the étale topology. The main ingredient is the special case of the affine space \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) over a field k. This is dealt with by induction on n, using a key “Bertinitype” statement regarding the wild ramification of \(\ell \)adic local systems on affine spaces, which might be of independent interest. Its proof uses in an essential way recent advances in higher ramification theory due to T. Saito. We also give rigid analytic and mixed characteristic versions of the main result.
Mathematics Subject Classification
Primary 14F35 Secondary 14F20 14R101 Introduction
The étale homotopy theory of schemes of positive characteristic is quite poorly understood. For example, already the étale fundamental group \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1})\) of the affine line over an algebraically closed field k of characteristic p is incredibly complicated [36]. One of our main results is the realization that the étale homotopy theory of characteristic p schemes is in a certain way controlled by the étale fundamental group.
One of our main results is the following.
Theorem 1.1
Every connected affine \(\mathbf {F}_p\)scheme is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme.
This of course stands in stark contrast with the characteristic zero case. One might interpret this by saying that the étale fundamental group of a connected affine \(\mathbf {F}_p\)scheme is so large that it ‘absorbs’ the higher homotopy groups. To go one step beyond the affine case, Theorem 1.1 implies that the étale homotopy type of a normal quasicompact and separated \(\mathbf {F}_p\)scheme can be described as the homotopy colimit of a finite diagram of classifying spaces of profinite groups.
1.1 Artin neighborhoods
To explain both our initial motivation and the idea of proof of Theorem 1.1, we will start by discussing Artin’s construction of \(K(\pi , 1)\) neighborhoods on smooth complex algebraic varieties.
Our initial goal in this project was to generalize Artin’s theorem by showing that a smooth scheme over an infinite field of positive characteristic admits a covering by \(K(\pi , 1)\) open subschemes; we dared not hope that something as striking as Theorem 1.1 can be true. To this end, a good understanding of the problem with extending Artin’s characteristic zero proof put us on the right track.
Example 1.2
1.2 The Bertini theorem for lcc sheaves
Our main technical result below states that one can make problems as in Example 1.2 go away by applying a nonlinear automorphism of the affine space. Consequently, one can make the above inductive argument work for sheaves on \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\) if one is allowed to choose the fibration \(\pi :{\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1} \longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) after being given the locally constant sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\). For brevity, let us call a sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\) wellaligned with respect to a map \(\pi \) if condition (1.3) holds.
Theorem 1.3
(Bertini theorem for lcc sheaves) Let k be an infinite field of characteristic \(p>0\). Let \(\ell \ne p\) be a prime and let \(\mathscr {F}\) be a locally constant constructible sheaf of \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)vector spaces on \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\) (\(n\ge 0\)). Let \(\pi :{\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) be the projection to the first n coordinates. Then there exists an automorphism \(\varphi \) of \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\) such that \(\varphi ^* \mathscr {F}\) is wellaligned with respect to \(\pi \) (equivalently, \(\mathscr {F}\) is wellaligned with respect to \(\pi \circ \varphi ^{1}\)).
In fact, we prove that the assertion holds for a (not necessarily linear!) automorphism \(\varphi \) which is general in a suitable sense. This justifies the name ‘Bertini theorem.’ See Theorem 3.6 for a precise formulation.
We shall now explain how Theorem 1.3 implies Theorem 1.1. First, Theorem 1.3 enables us to prove by induction on n that the affine space \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\), along the lines sketched in Sect. 1.1. This turns out to be the key case of Theorem 1.1. To deduce the general case, one first treats affine étale schemes over \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) as an intermediate step. To this end, one uses the following result.
Proposition
(5.2) Let U be an affine scheme of finite type over k admitting an étale map \(g:U\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\). Then there exists a finite étale map \(f:U\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\).
The proof of this assertion is suprisingly easy, and is based on Nagata’s proof of the Noether normalization lemma [32, I §1]. A similar result has been obtained by Kedlaya [27], and both were inspired by a trick used in [26] in the onedimensional case. The following example illustrates the general idea.
Example 1.4
One can apply a similar reasoning in a mixed characteristic situation and prove that an affinoid rigid space which is étale over a polydisc is also finite étale over a polydisc, cf. Proposition 6.10.
Combining Proposition 5.2 with the fact that \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\), we see that if U is an affine scheme of finite type over k, admitting an étale map \(U\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\), then U is a \(K(\pi , 1)\). Finally, using limit arguments and Gabber’s affine analog of the proper base change theorem [20], we deduce Theorem 1.1.
1.3 Higher ramification theory and proof of the Bertini theorem
Theorem 1.3 is where higher ramification theory enters the picture. A key ingredient in the proof is the Deligne–Laumon theorem (cf. Corollary 2.3), which yields a condition for the higher direct images \(R^q \pi _* \mathscr {F}\) (\(q\ge 0\)) being locally constant in terms of the Swan conductors at infinity of the restriction of \(\mathscr {F}\) to the fibers of \(\pi \). The ‘baby case’ is when \(\mathscr {F}\) is nonfierce at infinity (cf. Definition 3.1), in which case we can take \(\varphi \) to be a general linear automorphism (cf. Proposition 3.4). In the general case, we use the recent work of Takeshi Saito on the characteristic cycle associated to a locally constant \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaf [38, 39]. It turns out that we can take the automorphism \(\varphi \) to be quadratic.
As pointed out to us by Maxim Kontsevich, it makes sense to ask whether a variant of Theorem 1.3 holds for irregular connections on \({\mathbf {A}_{\mathbf {C}}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\). Our method of proof, employing the characteristic cycle, seems to suggest that the answer should be positive. We plan to address this question in a future paper.
In the course of our work on Theorem 1.3, we started by solving its rank one case first. In this situation, the calculations are very explicit, and we include them in an “Appendix”. One good feature of this proof is that, unlike our treatment of the general case, the arguments work over a finite field. It could be interesting to obtain a general proof of our Bertini theorem over finite fields.
1.4 Mixed characteristic and rigid analytic variants
If X is a connected affine \(\mathbf {F}_p\)scheme and \(\mathscr {F}\) a locally constant constructible \(\mathbf {F}_p\)sheaf on X, then the maps (1.1) are isomorphisms. This can be seen easily using the Artin–Schreier sequence, cf. Example 4.5. Scholze [41, Theorem 4.9] observed that using perfectoid spaces, one can deduce that every mixed characteristic noetherian affinoid adic space is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) space for padic coefficients. Using a similar argument and Theorem 1.1, one can give the following strenghtening of Scholze’s result.
Theorem
(6.6) Every noetherian affinoid adic space over \(\mathrm{Spa}(\mathbf {Q}_p, \mathbf {Z}_p)\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) space.
This in turn allows us to give a mixed characteristic variant of Theorem 1.1.
Theorem
(6.7) Let A be a noetherian \(\mathbf {Z}_{(p)}\)algebra such that (A, pA) is a henselian pair. Then \({{\mathrm{Spec}}}A\) and \({{\mathrm{Spec}}}A[1/p]\) are \(K(\pi , 1)\) schemes.
This has a natural application to Milnor fibers and Faltings’ topos, allowing us to remove the log smoothness hypothesis of the main result of [3], cf. Corollary 6.9.
1.5 The naive étale topology
Corollary 1.5
(Presumably the same assertion holds for general constructible sheaves under suitable finiteness conditions on X.)
By the results of Sect. 6, analogous results hold for rigid spaces in positive and mixed characteristic, in which case the naive étale topology is generated by admissible open coverings and finite étale covers of affinoids.
1.6 Implications in étale homotopy
Theorem 5.1 yields a “finite” description of the homotopy type of a smooth ndimensional variety in characteristic p in terms of the single profinite group \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n})\).
Corollary 1.6
In principle, this tells us that a good understanding of the group \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n})\) would shed light on the étale homotopy types of smooth kschemes. Unfortunately, this group is too complicated for us to derive any concrete corollaries from the above presentation.
In any case, the results seem to suggest that a very strong form of Grothendieck’s anabelian conjectures could be true in positive characteristic. We allow ourselves to put forth some ambitiouslooking questions in this direction in Sect. 7.6.
1.7 Examples and complements

Example 7.1, showing that in the presence of fierce ramification, linear projections are not enough in general in the context of Theorem 1.3.

Example 7.2 of a smooth affine variety X (the complement of a hyperplane arrangement) over \(\mathbf {Z}\) such that \(X_{\overline{\mathbf {F}}_p}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) for every \(p>0\) while \(X_{\overline{\mathbf {Q}}}\) is not.

Example 7.3 showing that \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n})\) and \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! m})\) are not isomorphic as profinite groups for \(n\ne m\), even though they have the same finite quotients.
1.8 Outline
In Sects. 2, 3 and “Appendix”, we deal with the proof of the Bertini theorem. We start with a review of relevant ramification theory in Sect. 2. Then we prove the easy case of the theorem when the sheaf is nonfiercely ramified at infinity in Sect. 3.1, and proceed to the general case in Sect. 3.2. “Appendix” contains an alternative proof of the rank one case of Theorem 1.3.
In Sects. 4–6, we deal with \(K(\pi , 1)\) schemes and rigid analytic spaces. In Sect. 4, we review the notion of a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme. Then in Sect. 5, we prove Theorem 1.1. The subsequent Sect. 6 treats the mixed characteristic and rigid geometry analogues of Theorem 1.1.
In the last Sect. 7, we provide relevant examples and further discussion as listed above.
2 Review of wild ramification
Let k be an algebraically closed field of characteristic \(p>0\).
2.1 The Swan conductor
Definition 2.1
 (1)
We call \(\mathscr {F}\) nonfiercely ramified if there exists a finite separable Galois extension \(K'/K\) such that the pullback of \(\mathscr {F}\) to \({{\mathrm{Spec}}}K'\) is constant and such that the residue field extension \(\kappa '/\kappa \) is separable.
 (2)Let \(K'/K\) be as in (1), and let \(x \in \mathscr {O}_{K'}\) be a generator of \(\mathscr {O}_{K'}\) as an \(\mathscr {O}_K\)algebra [44, Chap. III, Prop. 12]. The ramification groups \(G_i \subseteq G = \mathrm{Gal}(K'/K)\) (cf. [44, Chapter IV, §1]) are defined asThey are independent of the choice of x. The group \(G_0\) is the inertia subgroup of G, and \(G_1\) is called the wild inertia subgroup.$$\begin{aligned} G_i = \{ \sigma \in G \, : \, \nu _{K'}(\sigma (x)x) \ge i+1\}. \end{aligned}$$
 (3)Suppose that \(\mathscr {F}\) is nonfiercely ramified. Let \(K'/K\) be as in (1), let \(G=\mathrm{Gal}(K'/K)\) (so that \(\mathrm{Gal}(K^\mathrm{sep}/K)\) acts on M through its quotient G), and let \(G_i\subseteq G\) (\(i\ge 0\)) be the ramification groups. The Swan conductor of \(\mathscr {F}\) is defined as (cf. [43, §19.3], [29, §1.1])It is an integer, and is independent of the choice of \(K'\). We also define the total dimension$$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{Sw}}}(\mathscr {F}) = \sum _{i=1}^\infty \frac{1}{[G_0:G_i]} \dim _{\mathbf {F}_\ell } (M/M^{G_i}). \end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{dimtot}}}(\mathscr {F}) = \dim _{\mathbf {F}_\ell } M + {{\mathrm{Sw}}}(\mathscr {F}). \end{aligned}$$
2.2 The Deligne–Laumon theorem
In the context of Theorem 1.3, the utility of the Swan conductor comes from the following result of Deligne and Laumon.
Theorem 2.2
 (i)
The function \(\varphi \) is a constructible and lowersemicontinuous,
 (ii)
If \(\varphi \) is locally constant on S, then the triple \((X, \mathscr {F}, f)\) is universally locally acyclic.
Corollary 2.3
Let \(f:X\longrightarrow S\) be a projective morphism with geometrically connected fibers, smooth of relative dimension 1, \(i:S\longrightarrow X\) a section, \(\mathscr {F}\) a locally constant constructible \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaf on \(U=X{\setminus } i(S)\). Suppose that the number \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_{i(\overline{s})}(\mathscr {F}_{U_{\overline{s}}})\) is independent of the geometric point \(\overline{s}\) of S. Then the sheaves \(R^q f_* \mathscr {F}\) and \(R^q f_! \mathscr {F}\) are locally constant with formation commuting with base change for all \(q\ge 0\). In particular, we have \(R^q f_* \mathscr {F}= 0\) for \(q>1\).
Proof
We note first that for a locally constant constructible \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaf on \(\eta ={{\mathrm{Spec}}}K\) where K is a henselian discrete valuation field with perfect residue field, we have \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}(\mathscr {F}) = {{\mathrm{Sw}}}(\mathscr {F}^\vee )\). Indeed, it is clear from the fact that (using the notation of Definition 2.1) the \(G_i\) are pgroups for \(i\ge 1\), and hence M is semisimple as a \(G_i\)representation (by Maschke’s theorem), so \(\dim _{\mathbf {F}_\ell } (M/M^{G_i}) = \dim _{\mathbf {F}_\ell } (M^\vee /(M^\vee )^{G_i})\) and \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}(M) = {{\mathrm{Sw}}}(M^\vee )\).
It follows that we can apply [29, Corollaire 2.1.2] (together with [29, Remarque 2.1.3]) to both \(\mathscr {F}^\vee \) and \(\mathscr {F}\) to see that \(R^q f_! \mathscr {F}^\vee \) and \(R^q f_! \mathscr {F}\) are locally constant for \(q\ge 0\). By Poincaré–Verdier duality, the sheaves \(R^q f_* \mathscr {F}\) are then locally constant with formation commuting with base change.\(\square \)
2.3 The characteristic cycle of a constructible sheaf
The recent work of Beilinson [10] and Saito [39] provides an analogue of the classical theory of the singular support and the characteristic cycle [28, Chapter IX] for constructible étale sheaves, fulfilling an expectation of Deligne. Let us review the relevant points briefly, following [39].
Let X be a smooth scheme over k which is everywhere of dimension n, let \(\ell \ne p\) be a prime, and let \(\mathscr {F}\) be a constructible complex of \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)vector spaces on X. In [10], Beilinson defines the singular support \(SS\mathscr {F}\) inside the cotangent bundle \(T^* X\). It is the smallest closed conical subset \(C\subseteq T^* X\) such that \(\mathscr {F}\) is microsupported on C (cf. Definition 2.4(4) below). He proves that all of its irreducible components have dimension n.
Definition 2.4
 1.A morphism \(h:W\longrightarrow X\) from a smooth kscheme W is called Ctransversal if for every \(w\in W(k)\),In this case, we define$$\begin{aligned} C \cap \ker \left( h^*:T^*_{h(w)} X\longrightarrow T^*_w W\right) = \{0\} \text { or }\varnothing . \end{aligned}$$
 2.A morphism \(f:X\longrightarrow Y\) to a smooth kscheme Y is called Ctransversal if for every \(x\in X(k)\),$$\begin{aligned} \text {the preimage of }C\text { under }f^*:T^*_{f(x)} Y \longrightarrow T^*_x X = \{0\} \text { or }\varnothing . \end{aligned}$$
 3.
A pair of morphisms \(h:W\longrightarrow X\), \(f:W\longrightarrow Y\) of smooth kschemes is called Ctransversal if h is Ctransversal and f is \(h^\circ C\)transversal.
 4.
We say that a constructible complex of \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaves \(\mathscr {F}\) on X is microsupported on C if for every Ctransversal pair of morphisms \(h:W\longrightarrow X\), \(f:W\longrightarrow Y\), f is locally acyclic with respect to \(h^* \mathscr {F}\) (cf. [15, Th.Finitude, Definition 2.12]).
In our proof of the Bertini theorem, we have to control the wild ramification of the restrictions to curves of a given sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\). To this end, we need some compatibility of the characteristic cycle with pullback.
Definition 2.5
Theorem 2.6
Corollary 2.7
Here we follow the convention that \(\mathbf {P}(T X)\) parametrizes lines in the tangent bundle TX (this is consistent with [39]). Thus points \(D\times _X \mathbf {P}(T X)\) are identified with pairs (x, L) of a point \(x\in D\) and a tangent direction \(L\subseteq T_x X\).
Proof
Remark 2.8
In his slightly earlier paper [38], predating Beilinson’s ideas, Saito defined the characteristic cycle of a locally constant constructible sheaf in a neighborhood of the generic point of the boundary divisor D using a different method, and studied its behavior upon restrictions to curves. Our Corollary 2.7 can also be deduced from [38, Corollary 3.9.2].
3 Proof of the Bertini theorem
In this section, k remains to denote a fixed algebraically closed field of characteristic \(p>0\). The assertions of Proposition 3.4 and Theorem 3.6 remain valid over any infinite characteristic p field.
3.1 The nonfierce case of the Bertini theorem
As a warmup, we show that a variant of Theorem 1.3 holds for sheaves with nonfierce ramification at infinity. In contrast with the general case, it is possible to choose the automorphism \(\varphi \) to be a general linear automorphism.
Let X be an integral smooth scheme over k, \(D\subseteq X\) an irreducible smooth divisor, \(U=X{\setminus } D\) its complement. Let \(\mathscr {F}\) be a locally constant constructible \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaf on U. Let \(X_{(\eta _D)}\) denote the localization of X at the generic point \(\eta _D\) of D for the étale topology. Then \(X_{(\eta _D)}\times _X U\) is the spectrum of the henselization of the fraction field of X with respect to the discrete valuation given by D.
Definition 3.1
We call \(\mathscr {F}\) nonfiercely ramified along D if the restriction of \(\mathscr {F}\) to \(X_{(\eta _D)}\times _X U\) is nonfiercely ramified in the sense of Definition 2.1(1), and if this is the case we write \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_D(\mathscr {F}) = {{\mathrm{Sw}}}(\mathscr {F}_{X_{(\eta _D)}\times _X U})\).
Proposition 3.2
(cf. [30, §2.2]) In the above situation, suppose that \(\mathscr {F}\) is nonfiercely ramified along D. Then there exists a dense open \(D^\circ \subseteq D\) with the property that for any \(x\in D^\circ (k)\) and any smooth locally closed curve \(C\subseteq X\) with \(C\cap D = \{x\}\) and transverse to D at x, we have \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_x(\mathscr {F}_{C{\setminus } \{x\}}) = {{\mathrm{Sw}}}_D(\mathscr {F})\).
Proof
We include a direct proof (surely standard) because we were unable to find one in the literature (but see Remark 3.3 below). Let \(\overline{\eta }_D\) be a geometric point above \(\eta _D\). Setting \(\eta = X_{(\overline{\eta }_D)}\times _X U\) puts us in the henselian situation described in Sect. 2. Let \(K'/K\) be as in Definition 2.1. Since the residue field \(\kappa \) of K is separably closed, while \(\kappa '/\kappa \) is separable because of the nonfierceness assumption, we have \(\kappa '=\kappa \). Thus \(K'\) is a totally ramified extension of K. By [44, I §6], there exists an Eisenstein polynomial \(P\in \mathscr {O}_K[T]\) such that \(\mathscr {O}_{K'} \simeq \mathscr {O}_K[T]/(P)\), and the image of the variable T is a uniformizer of \(\mathscr {O}_{K'}\) under this isomorphism.
 (1)
\(X={{\mathrm{Spec}}}A\) is affine,
 (2)
D is principal, its ideal generated by an element \(\pi \in A\),
 (3)
there exists a polynomial \(P\in A[T]\) whose image in \(\hat{A}[T]\) (\(\hat{A} = \varprojlim A/\pi ^{n+1}\)) is an Eisenstein polynomial, such that, setting \(B=A[T]/(P)\), \(Y={{\mathrm{Spec}}}B\), then Y is normal and finite over X, and \(V={{\mathrm{Spec}}}B[1/\pi ]\) is an étale torsor under a finite group G over \(U = {{\mathrm{Spec}}}A[1/\pi ]\),
 (4)
the pullback of \(\mathscr {F}\) to V is constant,
 (5)the polynomial P has the form$$\begin{aligned} P = T^r + a_1 T^{r1} + \cdots + a_r, \quad a_i= u_i\cdot \pi ^{m_i}, \, u_i\in A^\times , \, m_i \ge 1, \end{aligned}$$
 (6)for all \(\sigma \in G\), there exists an integer \(m(\sigma )\) and a unit \(u(\sigma )\in B^\times \) such that$$\begin{aligned} \sigma (T)  T = u(\sigma )\cdot T^{m(\sigma )}. \end{aligned}$$
Remark 3.3
Note that in the classical complex analytic setting (3.1) is always satisfied because the irreducible components of the singular support of a holonomic \(\mathscr {D}\)module are Lagrangian subvarieties of \(T^* X\), and hence are the closures in \(T^* X\) of conormal bundles \(T^*_Z X\) of smooth locally closed subschemes \(Z\subseteq X\).
Proposition 3.4
The assertion of Theorem 1.3 holds for a general linear automorphism \(\varphi \) of \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\) if the sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\) is nonfiercely ramified along the hyperplane at infinity.
Proof
By Proposition 3.2, there exists a dense open subset \(H^\circ \subseteq H\) of the hyperplane at infinity with the property that for any line \(L\subseteq {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\) which meets \(H^\circ \) at infinity the Swan conductor \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_L)\) is independent of L. Therefore if we take for \(\pi :{\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) a linear projection along a line L which meets \(H^\circ \) at infinity, then function \(y\mapsto {{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(y)})\) will be constant. Hence the sheaves \(R^q \pi _* \mathscr {F}\) will be locally constant with formation commuting with base change by the Deligne–Laumon theorem (Corollary 2.3). \(\square \)
Remark 3.5
3.2 The general case of the Bertini theorem
Before going into the proof, let us explain its main idea. In the nonfierce situation in the previous section, the Swan conductor \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_x(\mathscr {F}_{C{\setminus } \{x\}})\) of the restriction of a sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\) to a curve meeting the boundary divisor D transversally at a single point x was independent of C for x in a dense open \(D^\circ \subseteq D\).
In the general case, the theory of the characteristic cycle (Corollary 2.7) shows that the same assertion holds if the tangent space \(T_x C \subseteq T_x X\) is a fixed element of a dense open subset \(T^\circ \) of \(D\times _X \mathbf {P}(T X)\). This implies that for \(x\in D\) and a tangent direction \(L\subseteq T_x X\) such that \((x, L)\in T^\circ \), the number \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_x(\mathscr {F}_{C{\setminus } \{x\}})\) is independent of C as long as \(T_x C = L\).
It would therefore suffice to construct an \(\mathbf {A}^1\)fibration \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) whose fibers meet the hyperplane at infinity transversally with the same tangent direction. This is probably impossible, but we can produce such a fibration whose fibers are tangent to order two to the hyperplane at infinity and agree to sufficiently high order at that point. If \(p>2\), taking the normalization of their preimages in a cyclic covering of degree two ramified along the hyperplane at infinity makes them transverse to the boundary, with the same tangent direction (this is another idea due to T. Saito). This allows one to apply Corollary 2.7 to the cyclic covering.
Theorem 3.6
Proof
4 Review of \(K(\pi , 1)\) schemes
Definition 4.1
Note that this is stronger than the notion used in op.cit., as we do not require that \(\mathscr {F}\) be of torsion order invertible on X. The reference [4, §9] contains the most detailed discussion of this and related notions.
Proposition 4.2
 (a)
X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if for every locally constant constructible abelian sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\) on X, and every class \(\zeta \in H^q(X, \mathscr {F})\) with \(q>0\), there exists a finite étale surjective map \(f:X'\longrightarrow X\) such that \(f^*(\zeta ) = 0 \in H^q(X', f^* \mathscr {F})\).
 (b)
Let \(f:X'\longrightarrow X\) be a finite étale surjective map. Then X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if \(X'\) is.
 (c)
X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if for every prime \(\ell \), every locally constant constructible \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\) on X, and every class \(\zeta \in H^q(X, \mathscr {F})\) with \(q>0\), there exists a finite étale surjective map \(f:X'\longrightarrow X\) such that \(f^*(\zeta ) = 0 \in H^q(X', f^* \mathscr {F})\).
Proof
Lemma 4.3
The maps \(\rho ^q\) are isomorphisms for \(q\le 1\). (In fact, this holds for \(q=0\) and sheaves of sets, and for \(q=1\) and sheaves of groups as well.) Therefore schemes of cohomological dimension \(\le 1\) (in particular, affine schemes of finite type of dimension \(\le 1\) over a separably closed field) are \(K(\pi , 1)\).
Proof
For \(q=0\), cf. [4, Proposition 9.17]. The statement for \(q=1\) follows from the torsor interpretation of \(H^1\) (cf. [33, Remark 5.2]): a class \(\zeta \in H^1(X, \mathscr {F})\) corresponds to an isomorphism class of an \(\mathscr {F}\)torsor \(f:X'\longrightarrow X\). The pullback \(X'\times _X X'\longrightarrow X'\) has a section, and hence is a trivial \(f^*\mathscr {F}\)torsor, thus the corresponding class \(f^* \zeta \in H^1(X', f^*\mathscr {F})\) is zero. \(\square \)
Proposition 4.4
Let \((X, \overline{x})\) be a pointed connected noetherian scheme. Assume moreover that X is geometrically unibranch ([21, 6.15.1], e.g. X normal). Then X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if \(\pi _q(X,x)=0\) for \(q>1\), where \(\pi _q(X,x)\) is the étale homotopy group of Artin–Mazur [5].
Proof
Consider the natural map of sites \(\rho :X_{{\acute{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{t}}\longrightarrow B\pi _1(X, x)\) and the associated map \(\Pi \rho \) where \(\Pi \) is the Verdier functor [5, §9]. On the one hand, X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if \(\Pi \rho \) is a \(\natural \)isomorphism (cf. [5, Theorem 4.3]). On the other hand, \(\Pi \rho \) induces an isomorphism on \(\pi _1\) and \(\pi _q(B\pi _1(X, x))=0\) for \(q>1\), so \(\pi _q(X,x)=0\) for \(q>1\) if and only if \(\Pi \rho \) is a weak equivalence. Both source and target of \(\Pi \rho \) being profinite (thanks to X being geometrically unibranch, [5, Theorem 11.1]), we conclude by [5, Corollary 4.4]. \(\square \)
Example 4.5
This example has been recently used by Scholze [41, Theorem 4.9] to show that any Noetherian affinoid adic space over \({{\mathrm{Spa}}}(\mathbf {Q}_p, \mathbf {Z}_p)\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) for padic coefficients. We will follow Scholze’s argument to prove that such spaces are in fact \(K(\pi , 1)\) for all coefficients in Sect. 6.
5 Affine \(\mathbf {F}_p\)schemes are \(K(\pi , 1)\)
5.1 The affine space is a \(K(\pi , 1)\)
We start by showing that \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) over a field k of characteristic \(p>0\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) by induction on n, using Theorem 1.3 in the induction step. Let us sketch the idea of the proof. By the characterization of Proposition 4.2(b), being a \(K(\pi , 1)\) means being able to kill nonzero degree cohomology classes of locally constant constructible \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaves (\(\ell \) an arbitrary prime) using finite étale covers. The case \(\ell =p\) follows easily from Artin–Schreier theory, so suppose \(\ell \ne p\). If \(\mathscr {F}\) is such a sheaf, then Theorem 1.3 for \(\mathscr {F}\) implies that for a certain fibration \(\pi :{\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1} \longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\), the higher direct image sheaves \(R^i \pi _* \mathscr {F}\) are locally constant, and hence one can kill their cohomology using finite étale covers of \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\). We derive the corresponding statement for \(\mathscr {F}\) using the Leray spectral sequence of \(\pi \).
Theorem 5.1
Let k be a field. Then the affine space \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme.
Proof
We prove this by induction on \(n\ge 0\). We can assume that k is an infinite field of characteristic \(p>0\). Let \(\mathscr {F}\) be a locally constant constructible abelian sheaf on \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\). We want to show that for every class \(\zeta \in H^q({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}, \mathscr {F})\) (\(q>0\)) there exists a finite étale surjective \(f:X'\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\) such that \(f^*(\zeta )=0\in H^q(X', f^* \mathscr {F})\). This is automatic for \(q=1\) (Lemma 4.3), so we can assume \(q>1\). Moreover, by Proposition 4.2(c), we can assume that \(\mathscr {F}\) is an \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaf for a certain prime \(\ell \). The case \(\ell =p\) is handled by Example 4.5, so we can assume \(\ell \ne p\).
Replace \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\) with \(X' = X\times _{{\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}} {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\), \(\pi :{\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) with its pullback \(\pi ':X' \longrightarrow X\), \(\mathscr {F}\) and \(\zeta \) with their pullbacks \(\mathscr {F}'\), \(\zeta '\) to \(X'\). We again have an exact sequence as above, but now since \(\zeta '\) maps to 0 in \(H^{q1}(X, R^1 \pi '_* \mathscr {F}')\), it is the pullback of a class \(\zeta _1 \in H^q(X, \pi '_* \mathscr {F}')\). Again, since X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) and \(\pi '_* \mathscr {F}'\) is locally constant, we conclude that there is a finite étale surjective \(Y\longrightarrow X\) killing \(\zeta _1\), and then \(Y'=Y\times _X X'\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n+1}\) kills \(\zeta \), as desired. \(\square \)
5.2 Étale schemes over the affine space
Next, we deal with affine schemes endowed with an étale map to \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\). To this end, we employ the following result.
Proposition 5.2
Let k be a field of characteristic \(p>0\). Let U be an affine scheme of finite type over k, and let \(g:U\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) be an étale map. Then there exists a finite étale map \(f:U\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\).
Proof
This is a variant of Nagata’s proof of Noether normalization (cf. [32, I §1]). Write \(U={{\mathrm{Spec}}}R\), \(R=k[x_1, \ldots , x_n, x_{n+1}, \ldots , x_r]/I\), where \(x_1, \ldots , x_n\) are the pullbacks of the coordinates on \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) via g. We shall prove a slightly stronger statement: given any \(x_1, \ldots , x_r\in R\) such that \(r\ge n = \dim R\) and \(x_1, \ldots , x_n\) are algebraically independent over k, there exist \(y_1, \ldots , y_n \in R\) such that R is finite over \(k[x_1 + y_1^p, \ldots , x_n + y_n^p]\). This implies what we want to prove because \(dy_i^p = 0\), so \(f=(x_1+y^p_1, \ldots , x_n+y^p_n)\) is étale if and only if g is.
Remark 5.3
A related result has been obtained by Kedlaya [27]. As far as the author can tell, the trick of adding pth powers to make a given map finite while preserving étaleness goes back to Abhyankar [2]. The author learned this technique from Katz’s lectures [26]. We have previously used a variant of this fact in a mixed characteristic situation [3, Proposition 5.4]. In Sect. 6.6, we will give a rigid analytic variant of Proposition 5.2.
Corollary 5.4
Let U be an affine scheme of finite type over k, and let \(g:U\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) be an étale map. Then U is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) and for every geometric point \(\overline{u}\) of U, \(\pi _1(U, \overline{u})\) is isomorphic to an open subgroup of \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}, 0)\).
5.3 Henselian pairs and Gabber’s theorem
Theorem 5.5
Corollary 5.6
In the above situation, X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if \(X_0\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\).
Proof
If \(Y={{\mathrm{Spec}}}B\) is a finite étale Xscheme and \(J=IB\), then (B, J) is a henselian pair, and hence the above statements hold for (B, J). Let \(\mathscr {F}\) be an lcc sheaf on X, \(\zeta \in H^q(X, \mathscr {F})\simeq H^q(X_0, i^* \mathscr {F})\) (\(q>0\)). To show that X (resp. \(X_0\)) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) means that for every such pair \((\mathscr {F}, \zeta )\), there exists a finite étale surjective \(Y\longrightarrow X\) (resp. \(Y_0\longrightarrow X_0\)) killing \(\zeta \). By the above remarks, X is thus a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if \(X_0\) is. \(\square \)
5.4 The general case
Finally, we deal with general connected affine \(\mathbf {F}_p\)schemes.
Lemma 5.7
Suppose that \(A_\infty \) is a ring with no nontrivial idemponents which is the union of a filtered family of subrings \(A_i\subseteq A_\infty \) such that \(X_i = {{\mathrm{Spec}}}A_i\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\). Then \(X={{\mathrm{Spec}}}A_\infty \) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\).
Proof
Theorem
(1.1) Every connected affine scheme over \(\mathbf {F}_p\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme.
Proof
Let \(X={{\mathrm{Spec}}}A\) be a connected affine scheme over \(\mathbf {F}_p\). For a finite subset \(S\subseteq A\), let \(\mathbf {F}_p[S]\) be the subring of A generated by S. Then A is the union of all such rings \(\mathbf {F}_p[S]\). Therefore by Lemma 5.7 it suffices to treat the case when A is generated over \(\mathbf {F}_p\) by a finite number of elements \(a_1, \ldots , a_n\). These elements exhibit X as a closed subscheme of \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}={{\mathrm{Spec}}}P\), \(P=k[x_1, \ldots , x_n]\) (\(k=\mathbf {F}_p\)) defined by an ideal \(I\subseteq P\). Let \(X^h={{\mathrm{Spec}}}P^h\) be the henselization of \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) along X. By definition, \(P^h\) is the inductive limit of étale Palgebras B endowed with a section over X, i.e. a Palgebra homomorphism \(B/IB\longrightarrow P/I=A\). By Corollary 5.4, each \({{\mathrm{Spec}}}B\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\). By Lemma 5.7, \(X^h\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\). But \((P^h, IP^h)\) is a henselian pair and \(P^h/IP^h = P/I = A\). Thus \(X={{\mathrm{Spec}}}A\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) by Corollary 5.6. \(\square \)
6 Mixed characteristic and rigid analytic variants
6.1 Review of rigid geometry
We recall the setup for rigid geometry in the sense of Raynaud, for which we follow [1] (albeit we will only need the noetherian case, as opposed to the more general idyllic case treated in that book). An adic ring is a complete and separated topological ring A admitting a finitely generated ideal \(I\subseteq A\) such that the ideals \(I^n\) are open and form a basis of neighborhoods of \(0\in A\). Such an I is called an ideal of definition. A formal scheme \(\mathscr {X}\) is called adic if it is locally of the form \({{\mathrm{Spf}}}A\) for an adic ring A. An admissible blowup is a morphism \(\varphi :\mathscr {X}'\longrightarrow \mathscr {X}\) of finite type between adic formal schemes which is isomorphic to the blowup of \(\mathscr {X}\) of a finitely generated open ideal. The category \(\mathbf {R}\) of coherent rigid spaces is the localization of the category \(\mathbf {S}\) of noetherian quasicompact formal schemes and morphisms of finite type with respect to admissible blowups. If \(\mathscr {X}\) is an object of \(\mathbf {S}\), we denote the associated object of \(\mathbf {R}\) by \(\mathscr {X}^\mathrm{rig}\). We call \(\mathscr {X}^\mathrm{rig}\) the associated rigid space of \(\mathscr {X}\). A formal model of a coherent rigid space X is an object \(\mathscr {X}\) of \(\mathbf {S}\) together with an isomorphism \(X\simeq \mathscr {X}^\mathrm{rig}\). An affinoid rigid space is a coherent rigid space admitting a formal model of the form \({{\mathrm{Spf}}}(A)\) for a noetherian adic ring A which locally admits a principal ideal of definition.
One has natural notions of finite and étale morphisms in \(\mathbf {R}\), which allow one to define the rigétale topos \(X_{{{\acute{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{t}}}\) of a rigid space X.
6.2 The Gabber–Fujiwara theorem
Theorem 6.1
6.3 Affinoid rigid spaces in characteristic p
With the Gabber–Fujiwara theorem in place, we can easily deduce from Theorem 1.1 its rigid analytic variant.
Definition 6.2
We call a rigid space X a \(K(\pi , 1)\) space if for every locally constant constructible étale sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\) on X, and every class \(\zeta \in H^q(X, \mathscr {F})\) for \(q>0\), there exists a finite étale surjective map \(f:X'\longrightarrow X\) such that \(f^*(\zeta ) = 0 \in H^q(X', f^* \mathscr {F})\).
Lemma 6.3
Let (A, I) be a noetherian henselian pair, \(\hat{A}\) the Iadic completion of A. Then \({{\mathrm{Spf}}}(\hat{A})^\mathrm{rig}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) rigid space if and only if \({{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A){\setminus } V(I)\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme.
Proof
Let \(\mathscr {F}\) be a locally constant constructible sheaf on U, \(\zeta \in H^q(U, \mathscr {F})\cong H^q(X, \varepsilon ^* \mathscr {F})\). If U (resp. X) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) then there exists a finite étale surjective \(f:V\longrightarrow U\) (resp., \(g:Y\longrightarrow X\)) such that \(f^*(\zeta )=0\) (resp. \(g^*(\zeta )=0\)). The equivalence is thus clear in view of the preceding discussion.\(\square \)
Theorem 6.4
Let \(X={{\mathrm{Spf}}}(A)^\mathrm{rig}\) be an affinoid rigid space such that \(pA=0\). Then X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) space.
Proof
Let \(I\subseteq A\) be an ideal of definition, and let \(U={{\mathrm{Spec}}}A {\setminus } V(I)\). Since A locally admits a principal ideal of definition, the map \(U\longrightarrow {{\mathrm{Spec}}}A\) is affine, and hence U is an affine scheme. Thus U is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme by Theorem 1.1. Lemma 6.3 implies that X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) rigid analytic space.\(\square \)
6.4 Affinoid rigid spaces in mixed characteristic
To deduce the mixed characteristic case, we use perfectoid spaces. Since they are by definition adic spaces, not rigid spaces, we have to consider \(K(\pi , 1)\) adic spaces: we will simply call an adic space a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if the condition of Definition 6.2 holds. If X is a rigid space, \(X^\mathrm{ad}\) the associated adic space, then the étale topoi \(X_{{\acute{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{t}}\) and \(X^\mathrm{ad}_{{\acute{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{t}}\) are equivalent (cf. [24, Proposition 2.1.4]), and X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) rigid space if and only if \(X^\mathrm{ad}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) adic space. Our argument is analogous to [41, Theorem 4.9].
Proposition 6.5
Let \((A, A^+)\) be a perfectoid algebra over a perfectoid field K. Then \(\mathrm{Spa}(A, A^+)\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) adic space.
Proof
By definition, being pfinite means being the completed perfection of an affinoid algebra \((B, B^+=B^\circ )\) topologically of finite type over K. For such algebras, \(\mathrm{Spa}(B, B^+)\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) by the noetherian case (Theorem 6.4). But \(\mathrm{Spa}(A, A^+)\longrightarrow \mathrm{Spa}(B, B^+)\) induces an equivalence of the étale topoi ([40, Corollary 7.19]), and hence \(\mathrm{Spa}(A, A^+)\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\).
Finally, we treat the case when K has characteristic zero. Let \(X^\flat / K^\flat \) be the tilt. Then by [40, Theorem 7.12], the étale topoi of X and \(X^\flat \) are equivalent, and the same holds for all finite étale covers of X and \(X^\flat \) is a compatible way. Thus X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if \(X^\flat \) is. \(\square \)
Theorem 6.6
Let X be (1) an affinoid noetherian adic space over \(\mathrm{Spa}(\mathbf {Q}_p, \mathbf {Z}_p)\) or (2) \(X={{\mathrm{Spf}}}(A)^\mathrm{rig}\) for a noetherian padic ring A. Then X is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) space.
Proof
6.5 Application to padic Milnor fibers
We can apply the Gabber–Fujiwara theorem once again, now in mixed characteristic, to go back to the henselian case.
Theorem 6.7
Let A be a noetherian \(\mathbf {Z}_{(p)}\)algebra such that (A, pA) is a henselian pair. Then \({{\mathrm{Spec}}}A[1/p]\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme.
Proof
By Lemma 6.3, \({{\mathrm{Spec}}}A[1/p]\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) if and only if the rigid space \({{\mathrm{Spf}}}(\hat{A})^\mathrm{rig}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\), where \(\hat{A}\) is the padic completion of A. The latter is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) by Theorem 6.6. \(\square \)
Corollary 6.8
Let X be a Vscheme of finite type. Then for every geometric point \(\overline{x}\) of \(X_s\), the Milnor fiber \(M_{\overline{x}}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme.
This allows us to strenghten the main result of [3], removing the log smoothness hypothesis (but only in the case of \(X^\circ = X\)).
Corollary 6.9
6.6 Étale affinoids over the polydisc
Interestingly, we have a rigid analytic variant of Proposition 5.2 (cf. [3, Proposition 5.10]).
Proposition 6.10
Let K be a complete discretely valued field whose residue field k is of characteristic \(p>0\), U an affinoid rigid analytic space of finite type over K, \(\mathbf {B}^n\) the formal npolydisc over K (the rigidanalytic generic fiber of \({\mathbf {A}_{\mathscr {O}_K}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\)), \(g:U\longrightarrow \mathbf {B}^n\) an étale morphism. Then there exists a finite étale morphism \(f:U\longrightarrow \mathbf {B}^n\).
Proof
7 Examples and complements
7.1 Linear projections do not suffice
Let k be an algebraically closed field of characteristic \(p>0\), and let \(m=p^e>2\) for some integer \(e\ge 1\). Let x and y be coordinates on \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 2}\) and let \(\mathscr {F}= \mathscr {L}_{\psi , x^{m1}y}\) be the Artin–Schreier sheaf associated to a nontrivial character \(\psi :\mathbf {Z}/p\mathbf {Z}\longrightarrow \mathbf {F}_\ell ^\times \) and the function \(x^{m1}y\). Let \(\pi :{\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 2} \longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1}\) be a surjective linear map. The following lemma shows that \(R^1 \pi _! \mathscr {F}\) is not locally constant. Consequently, the assertion of Proposition 3.4 is false for sheaves with fierce ramification at infinity.
Lemma 7.1
\({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(0)})\ne {{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(1)})\).
Proof
Say \(\pi (x, y) = ax + by\) with \(a, b\in k\) not both zero. Suppose first that \(b\ne 0\), then x is a coordinate on every fiber of \(\pi \), and \(y= \frac{a}{b}x + \frac{1}{b}\pi (x, y)\). If \(\pi (x, y) = 0\), then \(x^{m1}y = \frac{a}{b}x^m\), and hence \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(0)}) = 1\) if \(a\ne 0\), 0 if \(a=0\). If \(\pi (x, y) = 1\), then \(x^{m1}y = \frac{a}{b}x^m + \frac{1}{b} x^{m1}\), so \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(1)}) = m1>1\). It remains to consider the case \(b=0\). Then y is a coordinate on every fiber and \(x = \frac{1}{a} \pi (x, y)\), so \(x^{m1}y = 0\) if \(\pi (x, y) = 0\), and \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(0)}) = 0\), and if \(\pi (x, y) = 1\) then \(x^{m1} y = \frac{1}{a^{m1}} y\) and \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(1)}) = 1\). In each case we have \({{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(0)}) \ne {{\mathrm{Sw}}}_\infty (\mathscr {F}_{\pi ^{1}(1)})\). \(\square \)
Corollary 7.2
In the above situation, \(R^q \pi _! \mathscr {F}\) is not locally constant for some \(q\ge 0\).
Proof
7.2 Complements of hyperplane arrangements
Theorem 1.1 implies that every complement of a hyperplane arrangement in \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\). This is of course false over \(\mathbf {C}\), and this contrast yields examples of interesting arithmetic behavior, the failure of the Lefschetz principle or the question of the existence of a finite étale cover killing a given étale cohomology class.
Remark 7.3
The question whether certain complex complements of hyperplane arrangements are \(K(\pi , 1)\) (in the topological sense) has been extensively studied, cf. e.g. [11, 12, 14] or [34, §5.1]. Of course, the fundamental group of the complement of a hyperplane arrangement loses its link to combinatorics (or representation theory) when one passes to positive characteristic.
Proposition 7.4
 (1)
\(\pi _2(X(\mathbf {C}))\ne 0\) and \(\pi _1(X(\mathbf {C}))\simeq \mathbf {Z}^3\). In particular, \(X(\mathbf {C})\) is not a \(K(\pi , 1)\) space, and its fundamental group is a good group in the sense of Serre [42, §2.6].
 (2)
\(X_\mathbf {C}\) is not a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme. In particular \(X_K\) is not a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme for every field K of characteristic zero.
 (3)
\(X_k\) is a \(K(\pi , 1)\) scheme for every field k of characteristic \(p>0\).
Proof
 (1)
These statements follow from A. Hattori’s work [23] on the topology complements of generic hyperplane arrangements. See [34, Example 5.24] for a detailed discussion of this space, whose homotopy type is the same as that of the image Q of the boundary \(\partial [0,1]^3\) of the unit cube in \(\mathbf {R}^3\) under the quotient map \(\mathbf {R}^3 \longrightarrow \mathbf {R}^3/\mathbf {Z}^3\). The inclusion \(Q\hookrightarrow \mathbf {R}^3/\mathbf {Z}^3\) induces an isomorphism on fundamental groups, and the surjection \(S^2\simeq \partial [0,1]^3\longrightarrow Q\) induces an injection on \(\pi _2\). (In [34, Example 5.24], the authors claim that this map is an isomorphism on \(\pi _2\), which seems to be incorrect.)
 (2)For a subgroup \(\Lambda \subseteq \pi _1(X(\mathbf {C}))\simeq \mathbf {Z}^3\) of finite index, let us denote by \(X_\Lambda \longrightarrow X_\mathbf {C}\) the induced finite étale covering. Using the description of (1), \(X_\Lambda (\mathbf {C})\) can be identified with the image in \(\mathbf {R}^3/\Lambda \) of the union of the boundaries of all unit cubes in \(\mathbf {R}^3\) with vertices in \(\mathbf {Z}^3\). Let C be the boundary of one of these cubes, then for every finite abelian group M the compositionis easily seen to be surjective. In the commutative diagram the slant arrow is surjective, and hence the left vertical arrow is nonzero. Consequently, the top right term is nonzero, which shows that \(X_\mathbf {C}\) is not a \(K(\pi , 1)\) by the characterization of Proposition 4.2 and the fact that \(\pi _1(X_\mathbf {C})\) is the profinite completion of \(\pi _1(X(\mathbf {C}))\). The case of arbitrary characteristic zero fields follows from [3, Proposition 3.2(c)]. (In fact, the term \(\varinjlim _\Lambda H^2(X_\Lambda , M)\) equals \({{\mathrm{Hom}}}(\pi _2(X_\mathbf {C}), M)\) by [5, Proposition 6.3].)$$\begin{aligned} H^2(X(\mathbf {C}), M)\longrightarrow H^2(C, M)\simeq H^2(S^2, M)\simeq M \end{aligned}$$
 (3)
This is a direct consequence of Theorem 1.1.\(\square \)
Remark 7.5
7.3 Fundamental groups of affine spaces
Let k be an algebraically closed field of characteristic \(p>0\). Recall that by the work of Raynaud on Abhyankar’s conjecture [36], a finite group G arises as a quotient of \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1})\) if and only if G has no nontrivial quotient of order prime to p. It follows that \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n})\) has the same property for all \(n\ge 1\), and hence the profinite groups \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n})\) and \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1})\) have the same finite quotients. One can ask naively whether \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n})\simeq \pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1})\) as profinite groups (we could deduce this from the previous statement if the groups were topologically finitely generated, cf. [16, Proposition 15.4]). It is easy to see that such an isomorphism cannot be induced by an algebraic morphism \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\longrightarrow {\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1}\).
Proposition 7.6
If \(n\ne m\), then \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n})\) and \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! m})\) are not isomorphic as profinite groups.
Proof
Theorem 5.1 implies that the cohomological dimension of \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n})\) equals the largest q for which there exists a locally constant constructible sheaf \(\mathscr {F}\) on \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\) with \(H^q({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}, \mathscr {F})\ne 0\). Thus it suffices to show that the latter equals n. This is easy and wellknown, but we include a quick proof.
Let \(\mathscr {F}_1\) be any \(\mathbf {F}_\ell \)sheaf on \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1}\) (for some \(\ell \ne p\)) with \(H^1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1}, \mathscr {F}_1)\ne 0\) (for example, the Artin–Schreier sheaf \(\mathscr {L}_{\psi , x^m}\) where \(m>1\) is an integer prime to p and \(\psi :\mathbf {Z}/p\mathbf {Z}\longrightarrow \mathbf {F}_\ell ^\times \) is a nontrivial character, cf. (2.2) and Proposition A.1.3). Let \(\mathscr {F}_n = \mathscr {F}_1\boxtimes \ldots \boxtimes \mathscr {F}_1\) (n times). By the Künneth formula (cf. [15, Th. finitude, Corollaire 1.11]), \(H^n({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}, \mathscr {F}_n) \simeq H^1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1}, \mathscr {F}_1)^{\otimes n}\ne 0\). On the other hand, \(H^q({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}, \mathscr {F})\) vanishes for \(q>n\) for all constructible sheaves \(\mathscr {F}\), by Artin’s theorem on the cohomological dimension of affine schemes [7, Exp. XIV, Corollaire 3.2].\(\square \)
7.4 Prop completion and pSylow subgroups
Proposition 7.7
 (1)
The group \(\pi _1(X, \overline{x})\) is a pgood group,
 (2)
The pcompletion \(\pi _1(X, \overline{x})^{\mathrm{pro}p}\) is a free pgroup of rank equal to \(\dim _{\mathbf {F}_p} \Gamma (X, \mathscr {O}_X)/(1F)\),
 (3)
Every pSylow subgroup of \(\pi _1(X, \overline{x})\) is a free pgroup. In particular, \(\pi _1(X, \overline{x})\) is ptorsion free.
Proof
 (1)For brevity, let us call a finite étale surjective \(f:X'\longrightarrow X\) a pcover if it is Galois under the action of a finite pgroup. Let M be a finitedimensional \(\mathbf {F}_p\)vector space and let \(\rho :\pi _1(X, \overline{x})\longrightarrow GL(M)\) be a representation whose image is a pgroup. Let \(\mathscr {F}\) be the associated sheaf on \({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! n}\). Consider the commutative triangle Since the bottom map is an isomorphism by Theorem 1.1, the vertical arrow is an isomorphism if and only if the diagonal one is. To this end, let \(\rho _p\) be the natural map of topoiHere \(X_{pf{{\acute{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{t}}}\) denotes the topos of sheaves on the full subcategory of the étale site of X consisting of pcovers, with the induced topology. We must show that \(R^q \rho _{p*} \mathscr {F}= 0\) for \(q>0\). As usual, this is automatic for \(q=1\). By the definition of the higher direct images, this amounts to showing that for every pcover \(X'\longrightarrow X\), and every class \(\zeta \in H^q(X', \mathscr {F})\), there exists a pcover \(X''\) of X and a map \(f:X''\longrightarrow X'\) over X such that \(f^*\zeta = 0 \in H^q(X'', \mathscr {F})\). Since \(\mathscr {F}\) is trivialized by the pcover corresponding to the image of \(\rho \), we can assume \(\mathscr {F}\) is constant, and hence \(\mathscr {F}=\mathbf {F}_p\). In this case \(H^q(X, \mathbf {F}_p) = 0\) for \(q>1\) because X is affine, by Artin–Schreier theory.$$\begin{aligned} \rho _p :X_{{\acute{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{t}}\longrightarrow X_{pf{{\acute{\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{t}}} \simeq B\pi _1(X, \overline{x})^{\mathrm{pro}p}. \end{aligned}$$
 (2)
By [37, Theorem 7.7.4], to prove that \(\pi _1(X, \overline{x})^{\mathrm{pro}p}\) is free, it suffices to show that \(H^2(\pi _1(X, \overline{x})^{\mathrm{pro}p},\mathbf {F}_p) = 0\). This follows from (1) and the fact that \(H^q(X, \mathbf {F}_p) = 0\) for \(q>1\). The rank can be read off of \({{\mathrm{Hom}}}(\pi _1(X, \overline{x})^{\mathrm{pro}p}, \mathbf {F}_p) \simeq H^1(X, \mathbf {F}_p) \simeq \Gamma (X, \mathscr {O}_X)/(1F)\).
 (3)Let \(\Pi \subseteq \pi _1(X, \overline{x})\) be a pSylow subgroup. Let \(\Pi _\alpha \subseteq \pi _1(X, \overline{x})\) be a projective system of open subgroups such that \(\Pi = \bigcap _\alpha \Pi _\alpha \), and let \(\{X_\alpha \longrightarrow X\}\) be the corresponding projective system of finite étale coverings of X. Since the \(X_\alpha \) are also affine \(K(\pi , 1)\), we haveAgain, we conclude by [37, Theorem 7.7.4].\(\square \)$$\begin{aligned} H^2(\Pi , \mathbf {F}_p) = \varinjlim H^2(\Pi _\alpha , \mathbf {F}_p) = \varinjlim H^2(X_\alpha , \mathbf {F}_p) = 0. \end{aligned}$$
7.5 Relation to \(K(\pi , 1)\) pro\(\ell \)
7.6 Anabelian geometry speculations
 (1)
\(\varphi (F_X) = \mathrm{id}_{\varphi (X)}\) for all objects X,
 (2)
whenever \(\psi :\mathrm{Sch}_\mathrm{pos.char.} \longrightarrow \mathscr {C}\) is a functor such that \(\psi (F_X) = \mathrm{id}_{\psi (X)}\) for all objects X, then there exists a unique functor \(\overline{\psi }:\mathrm{Sch}^F \longrightarrow \mathscr {C}\) and an isomorphism \(\psi \simeq \overline{\psi }\circ \varphi \).
Definition 7.8
We put \(\Pi (X)\) here instead of \(\pi _1(X)\) because it behaves better in the absence of basepoints (cf. [46, §2.2]), and because the schemes we are interested in are \(K(\pi , 1)\) anyway.
The following question seems very natural in the light of our results.
Question 7.9
 (1)
the perfect ring \(R^{p^\infty }\) is a field,
 (2)
R is finitely generated over \(R^{p^\infty }\),
 (3)
\(\dim X > 0\).
Note the contrast with Grothendieck’s conjectures, where the fields in question are finitely generated. In fact, it makes sense to ask the above question under the additional restriction that \(R^{p^\infty }\) is an algebraically closed field.
It is not difficult to show, using the Artin–Schreier isomorphism \({{\mathrm{Hom}}}(\pi _1(X), \mathbf {F}_p)\simeq H^1(X, \mathbf {F}_p) \simeq R/(1F)\), that the map (7.1) is always injective. In other words, if X and Y are in the class C, and \(f, g:X\longrightarrow Y\) are two morphisms inducing the same map \(H^1(Y, \mathbf {F}_p)\longrightarrow H^1(X, \mathbf {F}_p)\), then \(f=g\). The details will appear elsewhere.
Surjectivity of (7.1) seems beyond reach at the present moment. A seemingly more tractable special case is the following:
Question 7.10
Let k be a perfect field of characteristic p. Does \(\pi _1({\mathbf {A}_{k}}^{\! \! \! \! 1})\) determine k?
Notes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Ahmed Abbes, Bhargav Bhatt, Ofer Gabber, Kiran Kedlaya, Laurent Lafforgue, Martin Olsson, Arthur Ogus, Fabrice Orgogozo, Takeshi Saito, Vasudevan Srinivas, and Karol Szumilo for helpful conversations. I am especially grateful to Takeshi Saito for his help with the proof of Theorem 1.3, and to Ofer Gabber for pointing out that Theorem 1.1 follows from its special case Corollary 5.4. We thank an anonymous referee for pointing out a mistake in an earlier version of the paper and for many valuable comments. We would also like to thank Maciej Borodzik for providing Fig. 1. The author was supported by NCN OPUS grant number UMO2015/17/B/ST1/02634.
References
 1.Abbes, A.: Éléments de géométrie rigide. Volume I. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 286, Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel (2010). Construction et étude géométrique des espaces rigides. With a preface by Michel RaynaudGoogle Scholar
 2.Abhyankar, S.: Coverings of algebraic curves. Am. J. Math. 79, 825–856 (1957)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 3.Achinger, P.: \(K(\pi,1)\)neighborhoods and comparison theorems. Compos. Math. 151(10), 1945–1964 (2015)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 4.Abbes, A., Gros, M.: Covanishing topos and generalizations. In: The \(p\)Adic Simpson Correspondence. Ann. of Math. Stud., vol. 193, pp. 485–576. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton (2016)Google Scholar
 5.Artin, M., Mazur, B.: Etale Homotopy. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 100. Springer, Berlin (1969)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 6.Artin, M.: Comparaison avec la cohomologie classique: cas d’un préschéma lisse, SGA 4 Exposé XI. Théorie des Topos et Cohomologie Étale des Schémas. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 305, pp. 64–78 (1973)Google Scholar
 7.Artin, M.: Théorème de finitude pour un morphisme propre; dimension cohomologique des schémas algébriques affines, SGA 4 Exposé XIV. Théorie des Topos et Cohomologie Étale des Schémas. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 305, pp. 145–167 (1973)Google Scholar
 8.Abbes, A., Saito, T.: Analyse microlocale \(l\)adique en caractéristique \(p>0\): le cas d’un trait. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 45(1), 25–74 (2009)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 9.Barrientos, I.: Log ramification via curves in rank 1. Int. Math. Res. Not. (2016). doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnw177
 10.Beilinson, A.: Constructible sheaves are holonomic. Selecta Math. (N.S.) 22(4), 1797–1819 (2016)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 11.Bessis, D.: Finite complex reflection arrangements are \(K(\pi,1)\). Ann. Math. (2) 181(3), 809–904 (2015)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 12.Brieskorn, E.: Sur les groupes de tresses, Séminaire Bourbaki, 24ème année (1971/1972). Exp. No. 401. Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 317, pp. 21–44. Springer, Berlin (1973)Google Scholar
 13.Brylinski, J.L.: Théorie du corps de classes de Kato et revêtements abéliens de surfaces. Ann. Inst. Fourier Grenoble 33(3), 23–38 (1983)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 14.Deligne, P.: Les immeubles des groupes de tresses généralisés. Invent. Math. 17, 273–302 (1972)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 15.Deligne, P.: Cohomologie étale. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 569. Springer, Berlin (1977)Google Scholar
 16.Fried, M.D., Jarden, M.: Field Arithmetic, 3rd eds., Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics, vol. 11. Springer, Berlin (2008). Revised by JardenGoogle Scholar
 17.Friedlander, E.M.: \(K(\pi,\,1)\)’s in characteristic \(p>0\). Topology 12, 9–18 (1973)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 18.Friedlander, E.M.: Étale Homotopy of Simplicial Schemes. Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 104. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1982)MATHGoogle Scholar
 19.Fujiwara, K.: Theory of tubular neighborhood in étale topology. Duke Math. J. 80(1), 15–57 (1995)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 20.Gabber, O.: Affine analog of the proper base change theorem. Israel J. Math. 87(1–3), 325–335 (1994)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 21.Grothendieck, A.: Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas. II. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 231(24), 231 (1965)Google Scholar
 22.Grothendieck, A.: Brief an G. Faltings. Geometric Galois Actions, 1. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 242, pp. 49–58. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1997). With an English translation on pp. 285–293Google Scholar
 23.Hattori, A.: Topology of \(C^{n}\) minus a finite number of affine hyperplanes in general position. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 22(2), 205–219 (1975)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 24.Huber, R.: Étale Cohomology of Rigid Analytic Varieties and Adic Spaces. Aspects of Mathematics, E30, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig (1996)Google Scholar
 25.Kato, K.: Swan conductors for characters of degree one in the imperfect residue field case. In: Algebraic \(K\)Theory and Algebraic Number Theory (Honolulu, HI, 1987), Contemp. Math., vol. 83, pp. 101–131. Am. Math. Soc., Providence (1989)Google Scholar
 26.Katz, N.M.: \(L\)functions and monodromy: four lectures on Weil II. Adv. Math. 160(1), 81–132 (2001)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 27.Kedlaya, K.S.: Étale covers of affine spaces in positive characteristic. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 335(11), 921–926 (2002)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 28.Kashiwara, M., Schapira, P.: Sheaves on Manifolds. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences), vol. 292. Springer, Berlin (1994). With a chapter in French by Christian Houzel, Corrected reprint of the 1990 originalGoogle Scholar
 29.Laumon, G.: Semicontinuité du conducteur de Swan (d’après P. Deligne). The Euler–Poincaré characteristic (French), Astérisque, vol. 83, pp. 173–219. Soc. Math. France, Paris (1981)Google Scholar
 30.Laumon, G.: Caractéristique d’Euler–Poincaré des faisceaux constructibles sur une surface. Analysis and topology on singular spaces, II, III (Luminy, 1981), Astérisque, vol. 101, pp. 193–207. Soc. Math. France, Paris (1983)Google Scholar
 31.Madore, D.A., Orgogozo, F.: Calculabilité de la cohomologie étale modulo \(\ell \). Algebra Number Theory 9(7), 1647–1739 (2015)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 32.Mumford, D.: The red book of varieties and schemes, expanded ed., Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1358, Springer, Berlin (1999). Includes the Michigan lectures (1974) on curves and their Jacobians, With contributions by Enrico ArbarelloGoogle Scholar
 33.Olsson, M.C.: On Faltings’ method of almost étale extensions. Algebraic geometry—Seattle 2005. Part 2, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 80, pp. 811–936. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (2009)Google Scholar
 34.Orlik, P., Terao, H.: Arrangements of Hyperplanes. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 300. Springer, Berlin (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
 35.Raynaud, M.: Anneaux locaux henséliens. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 169. Springer, Berlin (1970)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 36.Raynaud, M.: Revêtements de la droite affine en caractéristique \(p>0\) et conjecture d’Abhyankar. Invent. Math. 116(1–3), 425–462 (1994)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 37.Ribes, L., Zalesskii, P.: Profinite groups, second ed., Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics, vol. 40. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
 38.Saito, T.: Wild ramification and the cotangent bundle. J. Algebr. Geom. 26(2017), 399–473 (2016)Google Scholar
 39.Saito, T.: The characteristic cycle and the singular support of a constructible sheaf. Invent. Math. 207(2), 597–695 (2017)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 40.Scholze, P.: Perfectoid spaces. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 116, 245–313 (2012)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 41.Scholze, P.: \(p\)adic Hodge theory for rigidanalytic varieties. Forum Math. Pi 1, e177 (2013)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 42.Serre, J.P.: Cohomologie galoisienne. Cours au Collège de France, vol. 1962. Springer, Berlin (1962/1963)Google Scholar
 43.Serre, J.P.: Linear Representations of Finite Groups. Springer, New York (1977). Translated from the second French edition by Leonard L. Scott, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 42Google Scholar
 44.Serre, J.P.: Local Fields. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 67. Springer, New York (1979). Translated from the French by Marvin Jay GreenbergGoogle Scholar
 45.Grothendieck, A.: rédigé par I. Bucur, Formule d’EulerPoincaré en cohomologie étale, Cohomologie ladique et Fonction L , SGA 5 Expose X, Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 589(1977), 372–406Google Scholar
 46.Schmidt, A., Stix, J.: Anabelian geometry with étale homotopy types. Ann. Math. (2) 184(3), 817–868 (2016)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 47.Szamuely, T.: Heidelberg lectures on fundamental groups. In: The Arithmetic of Fundamental Groups—PIA 2010, Contrib. Math. Comput. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 53–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.