--- abstract: | Suppose given an holomorphic and Hamiltonian action of a compact torus $T$ on a polarized Hodge manifold $M$. Assume that the action lifts to the quantizing line bundle, so that there is an induced unitary representation of $T$ on the associated Hardy space. If in addition the moment map is nowhere zero, for each weight $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ the $\boldsymbol{\nu}$-th isotypical component in the Hardy space of the polarization is finite-dimensional. Assuming that the moment map is transverse to the ray through $\boldsymbol{\nu}$, we give a gometric interpretation of the isotypical components associated to the weights $k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}$, $k\rightarrow +\infty$, in terms of certain polarized orbifolds associated to the Hamiltonian action and the weight. These orbifolds are generally not reductions of $M$ in the usual sense, but arise rather as quotients of certain loci in the unit circle bundle of the polarization; this construction generalizes the one of weighted projective spaces as quotients of the unit sphere, viewed as the domain of the Hopf map. author: - 'Roberto Paoletti [^1]' title: Polarized orbifolds associated to quantized Hamiltonian torus actions --- Introduction ============ Let $M$ be a $d$-dimensional connected complex projective manifold, with complex structure $J$. Let $(A,h)$ be a positive holomorphic line bundle on $(M,J)$; the curvature of the unique covariant derivative on $A$ compatible with both the Hermitian metric $h$ and the complex structures has the form $\Theta=-2\pi\,\imath\,\omega$, where $\omega$ is a Kähler form on $(M,J)$. Let $\mathrm{d}V_M:=\omega^{\wedge d}/d!$ be the associated volume form on $M$. Let $A^\vee$ be the dual line bundle of $A$, endowed with the dual Hermitian metric $h^\vee$. As is well-known, positivity of $(A,h)$ is equivalent to the unit disc bundle $D\subset A^\vee$ being a strictly pseudoconvex domain @grauert. We shall denote by $X:=\partial D\subset A^\vee$ the unit circle bundle of $h^\vee$, and by $\alpha\in \Omega^1(X)$ the (normalized) connection 1-form on $X$. Thus, $X$ is a principal $S^1$-bundle on $M$, with the structure $S^1$-action $\rho^{X}:S^1\times X\rightarrow X$ given by clockwise fiber rotation. If $\pi:X\rightarrow M$ is the bundle projection, and $-\partial_\theta\in \mathfrak{X}(X)$ is the generator of $\rho^{X}$, then $$\label{eqn:key properties alpha} \mathrm{d}\alpha=2\,\pi^*(\omega),\quad \alpha (\partial_\theta)=1.$$ Let $\mathrm{d}V_X:=(\alpha/2\pi)\wedge \,\pi^*(\mathrm{d}V_M)$ be the associated volume form on $X$ Then $\alpha$ is a contact form on $X$, and $X$ is a CR manifold, with CR structure supported by the horizontal tangent bundle $$\label{eqn:horizontal tangent bundle} Hor(X):=\ker(\alpha)\subset TX.$$ Let $H(X)\subseteq L^2(X)$ denote the Hardy space of $X$. Since $\rho^X$ preserves $\alpha$ and the CR structure, it induces a unitary representation $\hat{\rho}^X$ of $S^1$ on $H(X)$, given by $$\hat{\rho}^X_{e^{\imath\,\vartheta}}(s)(x):= s\left(\rho^{X}_{e^{-\imath\,\vartheta}}(x)\right)= s\left(e^{\imath\,\vartheta}\,x\right) \quad \left(x\in X,\, e^{\imath\,\vartheta}\in S^1,\,s\in H(X)\right).$$ The induced isotypical decomposition is the Hilbert space direct sum $$\label{eqn:isotypical Hardy} H(X)=\bigoplus_{k=0}^{+\infty}H(X)_k,$$ where $$H(X)_k:=\left\{s\in H(X)\,:\,s\left(e^{\imath\,\theta}\,x\right)= e^{\imath\, k\,\theta}\,s(x)\,\quad\,\forall\,x\in X,\,e^{\imath\,\theta}\in S^1\right\}.$$ It is well-known that there are natural unitary isomorphisms $H(X)_k\cong H^0(M,A^{\otimes k})$, the latter being the space of global holomorphic sections of $A^{\otimes k}$. Furthermore, let $T\cong (S^1)^r$ be an $r$-dimensional compact torus, with Lie algebra and coalgebra $\mathfrak{t}$ and $\mathfrak{t}^\vee$, respectively. We shall equivariantly identify $\mathfrak{t}\cong \mathfrak{t}^\vee\cong \imath\,\mathbb{R}^r$. Suppose given an Hamiltonian and holomorphic action $\mu^M:T\times M\rightarrow M$ of $T$ on the Kähler manifold $(M,J,2\,\omega)$. Let $\Phi:M\rightarrow \mathfrak{t}^\vee\cong \imath\,\mathbb{R}^r$ be the moment map. It is standard that $\mu^M$ and $\Phi$ generate an infinitesimal contact and CR action of $\mathfrak{t}$ on $X$, so defined @ko. If $\xi\in \mathfrak{t}$, let $\xi_M\in \mathfrak{X}(M)$ be the Hamiltonian vector field induced by $\xi$ on $M$, and define a vector field $\xi_X\in \mathfrak{X}(X)$ by setting $$\label{eqn:xiX} \xi_X:=\xi_M^\sharp-\langle\Phi\circ \pi,\xi\rangle\,\partial_\theta\in \mathfrak{X}(X);$$ here $V^\sharp\in \mathfrak{X}(X)$ denotes the horizontal lift to $X$ of a vector field $V\in \mathfrak{X}(M)$, with respect to $\alpha$. The $\xi_X$'s are commuting contact vector fields on $X$, whose flow preserves the CR structure, and the map $\xi\mapsto \xi_X$ is a morphism of Lie algebras $\mathfrak{t}\rightarrow \mathfrak{X}(X)$. Let us make the stronger hypothesis that $\mu^M$ lifts to an actual contact and CR action of $T$ on $X$, $\mu^X:T\times X\rightarrow X$, and that $\mathrm{d}\mu^X(\xi)=\xi_X$ for any $\xi\in \mathfrak{t}$. Then $\mu^X$ determines a unitary representation $\hat{\mu}^X$ of $T$ on $H(X)$, given by $$\label{eqn:unitary action mu} \hat{\mu}^X_{\mathbf{t}}(s)(x):= s\left(\mu^{X}_{\mathbf{t}^{-1}}(x)\right) \quad \left(x\in X,\, \mathbf{t}\in T,\,s\in H(X)\right).$$ By the Peter-Weyl Theorem @st, $\hat{\mu}^X$ induces a unitary and equivariant splitting of $H(X)$ into isotypical components. Let us regard any $\boldsymbol{\nu}\in \mathbb{Z}^r$ as an integral weight on $T$, associated to the character $$\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(\mathbf{t}):=\mathbf{t}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}},$$ where for $\mathbf{t}=(t_1,\ldots,t_r)\in T$ we set $\mathbf{t}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\prod_{j=1}^r t_j^{\nu_j}$. For any $\boldsymbol{\nu}\in \mathbb{Z}^r$ , let us consider the $\boldsymbol{\nu}$-th isotypical component $$H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:= \left\{ s\in H(X)\,:\,\hat{\mu}_{\mathbf{t}}(s)= \chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(\mathbf{t})\cdot s\quad\forall\,\mathbf{t}\in T \right\}.$$ Then we have an equivariant Hilbert space direct sum $$\label{ref:HTdecomposition} H(X)=\bigoplus_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\in \mathbb{Z}^r}H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}.$$ In the special case where $T=S^1$, $\mu^M$ is trivial, and $\Phi=\imath$, $\imath\in \mathfrak{t}$ is mapped to $-\partial_\theta$, and so $\mu^X=\rho^X$; hence (\[ref:HTdecomposition\]) reduces to (\[eqn:isotypical Hardy\]), that is, $H(X)_k=H(X)^{\hat{\rho}}_k$ with $k$ in place of $\boldsymbol{\nu}$. In general, it may happen that $H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap H(X)_k\neq (0)$ for several $k$'s, so that $H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ does not correspond to a space of holomorphic sections of some power of $A$. Furthermore, $H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ may be infinite-dimensional. The latter circumstance does not occur, however, if $\mathbf{0}\not\in \Phi(M)$ (see §2 of @pao-ijm). We shall make the following Basic Assumption (henceforth referred to as BA): \[ba:transv\] $\Phi$ and $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ satisfy the following properties: 1. $\boldsymbol{\nu}\neq \mathbf{0}$ is coprime, that is, $\mathrm{l.c.d.}(\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_r)=1$; 2. $\Phi$ is nowhere vanishing, that is, $\mathbf{0}\not\in \Phi(M)$; 3. $\Phi$ is transverse to the ray $\mathbb{R}_+\cdot \imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}$, and $ M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\Phi^{-1}(\mathbb{R}_+\cdot \imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu})\neq \emptyset$. If the previous properties are satisfied, then $\mu^X$ is generically locally free @pao-ijm; perhaps after replacing $T$ with its quotient by a finite subgroup, we may and will assume without loss of generality that $\mu^X$ is generically free. Let us assume that BA holds. Then $H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}=(0)$ for all $k\le 0$ (§2 of @pao-ijm). We are interested in the sequence of spaces of finite-dimensional vector spaces $\big(H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}\big)_{k=1}^{+\infty}$ associated to the weights on the ray $\mathbb{R}_+\cdot \,\boldsymbol{\nu}$. The corresponding equivariant Szegö projectors $\Pi^{\hat{\mu}}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}:L^2(X)\rightarrow H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ are smoothing operators (that is, they have $\mathcal{C}^\infty$ integral kernels). Furthemore, $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq M$ is a $T$-invariant coisotropic connected compact submanifold of real codimension $r-1$ @pao-ijm. The local and global asymptotics for $k\rightarrow +\infty$ of the integral kernels $\Pi^{\hat{\mu}}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and their concentration behaviour along $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ were studied in @pao-ijm, @pao-lower, and related variants in the presense of additional symmetries where investigated in @cam. Our present aim is to clarify the geometric significance of the sequence $\big(H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}\big)_{k=1}^{+\infty}$, generalizing the interpretation of the sequence $\big(H(X)_k\big)$ in terms of the spaces $H^0(M,A^{\otimes k})$. We shall prove the following: \[thm:main\] Assume BA holds. Then there exists a $(d+1-r)$-dimensional connected compact complex orbifold $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, and a positive holomorphic orbifold line bundle $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, naturally constructed from $A$, $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ and $\Phi$, such that the following holds: 1. for $k\ge 1$, there is a natural injection $\delta_k:H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}\hookrightarrow H^0\big(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\otimes k}\big)$; 2. $\delta_k$ is an isomorphism if $k\gg 0$. \[cor:hol euler char\] If $k\gg 0$, $$\dim H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}} =\chi \big(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\otimes k}\big).$$ Obviously with no pretense of exhaustiveness, discussions of orbifolds and orbifold line bundles (also known as $V$-manifolds and line $V$-bundles) can be found in @sat1, @sat2, @baily, @k, @alr, @bg; specific treatments of Hamiltonian actions on symplectic orbifolds can be found in @lt and @ms. The geometric significance of the Theorem lies in the relation between the polarized orbifold $(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ and the prequantum data $(A,\,\Phi,\,\boldsymbol{\nu})$. It is therefore in order to outline how the former is constructed from the latter. The following statements will be clarified and proved in §\[sctn:preliminaries\]. Let $\tilde{T}\cong (\mathbb{C}^*)^r$ be the complexification of $T$. Then $\mu^X$ extends to an holomorphic line bundle action $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}:\tilde{T}\times A^\vee\rightarrow A^\vee$. Let $A^\vee_0$ be the complement of the zero section in $A^\vee$, and let $A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subset A^\vee_0$ be the inverse image of $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Let $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\tilde{T}\cdot A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ be its saturation under $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$. Then $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$ is proper and locally free on $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/\tilde{T}$. Thus the projection $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a principal $V$-bundle with structure group $\tilde{T}$ over $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ @sat2. Furthermore, $\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:T\rightarrow S^1$ extends to a character $\tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:\tilde{T}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$; the datum of $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $\tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ determines the orbifold line bundle $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Similarly, $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\otimes k}$ (or $B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}$) denotes the orbifold line bundle associated to $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $\tilde{\chi}_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}= \tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{k}$. We can give the following alternative algebro-geometric characterization of $\tilde{A}^{\vee}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Let $\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\subset \mathbb{R}^r$ be the orthocomplement of $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ with respect to the standard scalar product, and consider the (Abelian) subalgebra $\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\leqslant \mathfrak{t}$. Let $T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\leqslant T$ be the corresponding subtorus, $\tilde{T}^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\leqslant \tilde{T}$ be its complexification. The restriction of $\tilde{•\mu}^M$ to $\tilde{T}^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$ is an holomorphic action $\tilde{•\gamma}^M$ of $\tilde{T}^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$ on $(M,\,J)$, with a built-in complex linearization $\tilde{\gamma}^{A^\vee}:\tilde{T}^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\times A^\vee\rightarrow A^\vee$. Let $\tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq M$ be the locus of (semi)stable points of $\tilde{\gamma}^M$; then $\tilde{A}^{\vee}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is the inverse image of $\tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ in $A^\vee_0$. Up to a natural isomorphism, an alternative description of $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is as follows. Let $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\pi^{-1}(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$. Then $T$ acts locally freely on $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cong X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/T$. This description is instrumental in describing the positivity of $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and the Kähler structure of $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. When $r=1$, $M=\mathbb{P}^d$, and $A$ is the hyperplane line bundle with the standard metric, we have $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=X=S^{2d+1}$; thus the previous construction generalizes the one of weighted projective spaces (see also the discussions in @pao-lower and @pao-u2). Preliminaries {#sctn:preliminaries} ============= This section is devoted to a closer description of the geometric setting, and to the statement and proof of a series of geometric results that will combine into the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. We shall adopt the following notation and conventions. 1. If a Lie group $G$ with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ acts smoothly on a manifold $R$, for any $\xi \in \mathfrak{g}$ we shall denote by $\xi_R\in \mathfrak{X}(R)$ the vector field on $R$ generated by $\xi$. 2. If $r\in R$ and $\mathfrak{l}\subseteq \mathfrak{g}$ is a vector subspace, we shall set $$\mathfrak{l}_R(r):=\big\{\xi_R(r)\,:\,\xi\in \mathfrak{l}\big\}\subseteq T_rR.$$ 3. Given an isomorphism $T\cong (S^1)^r$, we have $\mathfrak{t}\cong\imath\,\mathbb{R}^r$. If we identify the Lie algebra $\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}$ of $\tilde{T}\cong \mathbb{R}_+^r\times T$ with $\mathbb{C}^r\cong \mathbb{R}^r\oplus\imath\,\mathbb{R}^r$, $\mathfrak{t}$ corresponds to the imaginary summand $\imath\,\mathbb{R}^r$. For $\mathbf{x}=\begin{pmatrix} x_1&\cdots&x_r \end{pmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^r$, we have $e^{\mathbf{x}}:=\begin{pmatrix} e^{x_1}&\cdots&e^{x_r} \end{pmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}_+^r\leqslant \tilde{T}^r$, while $e^{\imath\,\mathbf{x}}:=\begin{pmatrix} e^{\imath\,x_1}&\cdots&e^{\imath\,x_r} \end{pmatrix}\in T^r$. 4. We shall equivariantly identify $\mathfrak{t}\cong \mathfrak{t}^\vee$, and view $\Phi$ as $\mathfrak{t}$-valued. 5. If $V$ is any Euclidean vector space and $\epsilon>0$, $V(\epsilon)\subset V$ will denote the open ball in $V$ centered at the origin and of radius $\epsilon$. 6. $g(\cdot,\cdot):=\omega\big(\cdot,J(\cdot)\big)$ is the Riemannian metric associated to $\omega$. 7. $J'$ is the complex structure of $A^\vee$. 8. The superscript $\sharp$ will denote horizontal lifts from $M$ to either $X$ or $A^\vee$, according to the context, and will be applied to both tangent vectors and vector subspaces of tangent spaces. 9. $\pi:X\rightarrow M$ and $\pi':A^\vee_0\rightarrow M$ are the projections. 10. If $\beta^Z:G\times Z\rightarrow Z$ is an action of the group $G$ on the set $Z$, and if $S\subseteq Z$ is $G$-invariant, we shall often denote by $\beta^S:G\times S\rightarrow S$ the restricted action. Thus, for example, $\tilde{T}$ acts on $A^\vee$ by $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$, on $A^\vee_0\subset A^\vee$ by $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$, on $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq A^\vee_0$ by $\tilde{\mu}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$. The locus $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq M$ {#sctn:Mnu} ------------------------------------------- Let $\gamma^M:T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\times M\rightarrow M$ be the action induced by restriction of $\mu^M$. Then $\gamma^M$ is Hamiltonian with respect to $2\,\omega$, and its moment map $\Phi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}:M\rightarrow \imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp$ is the composition of $\Phi$ with the orthogonal projection $\mathfrak{t}\rightarrow \imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp$. Assuming BA, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. $\mathbf{0}\in \imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp$ is a regular value of $\Phi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$; 2. $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=\Phi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}^{-1}(\mathbf{0})$ is a compact and connected coisotropic submanifold of $M$, of (real) codimension $r-1$; 3. $\gamma^M$ is locally free along $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$, that is, $$\dim \big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_M(m)=r-1\quad \forall\, m\in M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp};$$ 4. for every $m\in M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, we have $$T_mM_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=\big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_M(m)^{\perp_{\omega_m}} =J_m\left((\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp)_M(m)\right)^{\perp_{g_m}}.$$ This implies the following statement. Let us define $$\label{eqn:Psiepsilon} \Psi:(\mathbf{x},m)\in(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp)\times M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\mapsto \tilde{\mu}_{e^{\mathbf{x}}}(m)\in M.$$ \[lem:localyl free mnu\] Given Basic Assumption \[ba:transv\], the following holds: 1. $\tilde{\gamma}^M$ is locally free along $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$; 2. for any sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$, $\Psi$ in (\[eqn:Psiepsilon\]) restricts to a diffeomorphism between $(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp)(\epsilon)\times M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and an open tubular neighborhood $U_{\epsilon}$ of $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ in $M$. The locus $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq X$ and its saturation $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ in $A^\vee$ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let us set: $$\label{defn:Xnu} X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\pi^{-1}(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})\subseteq X.$$ If $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, then in view of (\[eqn:xiX\]) $$\label{eqn:hor lift} \big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_X(x)= \big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_M(m)^\sharp . %$$ We have the following analogue of Lemma \[lem:localyl free mnu\]. \[lem:local diffeo tildeTXnu\] Given BA \[ba:transv\], the following holds: 1. $\mu^{X}$ is locally free along $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$; 2. for any $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $$T_xX_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap J'_x\big(\mathfrak{t}_{A^\vee}(x)\big)=(0);$$ 3. for all suitably small $\epsilon>0$, the map $$\Psi':(\mathbf{x},x)\in (\imath\,\mathfrak{t})\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\mapsto \tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{e^{\mathbf{x}}}(x)\in A^\vee_0$$ determines a diffemorphism from $(\imath\,\mathfrak{t})(\epsilon)\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ to a tubular neighborhood of $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ in $A^\vee$; 4. $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$ is locally free along $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:local diffeo tildeTXnu\]\] That $\mu^X$ is locally free on $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ under the transversality assumption in BA is proved in §2 of @pao-ijm. By the discussion in §\[sctn:Mnu\], if $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $m=\pi(x)$ then $$J_m\big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_M(m)^\sharp\subseteq T_xX$$ is the normal space of $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ in $X$ at $x$; hence given (\[eqn:hor lift\]) we have $$\label{eqn:normalbundleXnu0} T_xX_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap J'_x\big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_X(x)= T_xX_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap J_m\big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_M(m)^\sharp =(0).$$ Furthermore, by definition of $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ there exists a smooth function $\lambda_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ such that $$\label{eqn:nux0} (\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu})_X(x)=(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu})_M(m)^\sharp- \lambda_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(m)\,\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2\, \left.\partial_\theta\right|_x\not\in Hor(X)_x,\quad \forall\,x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}.$$ If $r$ denotes the radial coordinate along the fibers of $A^\vee$, this implies $$\label{eqn:Jnux0} J'_x\big((\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu})_X(x)\big)=J_m\big((\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu})_M(m)\big)^\sharp+ \lambda_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(m)\,\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2\, \left.\partial_r\right|_x\in T_xA^\vee \setminus T_xX.$$ The second statement follows from (\[eqn:normalbundleXnu0\]), (\[eqn:nux0\]) and (\[eqn:Jnux0\]). The third statement is an immediate consequence of the second. Since $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a $T$-invariant submanifold of $A^\vee$, $\big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_X(x)\subseteq T_xX_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ for any $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Hence if $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $m=\pi(x)$ then by (\[eqn:normalbundleXnu0\]) $$\label{eqn:normalbundleXnu} \big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_X(x)\cap J'_x\big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_X(x)= \big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_M(m)^\sharp\cap J_m\big(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp\big)_M(m)^\sharp =(0).$$ Together with the first statement, this implies $\dim_{\mathbb{C}}\big(\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(x)\big)=r$ for any $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Let us consider the saturation $$\label{eqn:tildeXnu} \tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\tilde{T}\cdot X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq A^\vee .$$ \[cor:open saturation\] $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is open in $A^\vee$. \[cor:loc free action Xnu\] If Basic Assumption \[ba:transv\] holds, then $\mu^X$ is generically free on $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. \[Proof of Corollary \[cor:loc free action Xnu\]\] If the general $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ had non-trivial stabilizer in $T$, the same would hold of the general $\ell\in \tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$; since the latter is open in $A^\vee_0$, this contradicts the assumption that $\mu^{A^\vee}$ is generically free. \[cor:Nnuprime orbifold\] If BA \[ba:transv\] holds, then $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}':=X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/T$ is a compact orbifold of real dimension $2\,(d+1-r)$, and the projection $$\label{eqn:projectionprime} p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}':X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$$ is a principal $V$-bundle with structure group $T$. \[rem:Bnu'\] Associated to $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ and the character $\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ there is a orbifold complex line bundle $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ on $N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. The Kähler structure of $A^\vee_0$ ---------------------------------- Let $\varrho:A_0^\vee\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ denote the square norm function in the Hermitian metric $h$, and set $$\label{eqn:tildeomega} \tilde{\omega}:=2\,\mathrm{d}\left(\Im \left(\partial\varrho^{1/2}\right)\right)= 2\,\imath\,\partial\overline{\partial}\left(\varrho^{1/2}\right) %=2\,\varrho\,^{1/2}\,\pi^*(\omega)+\frac{\imath}{•2\,\varrho^{3/2}} %\,\partial\varrho\wedge \overline{\partial}\varrho .$$ If $\pi':A^\vee_0\rightarrow M$ is the projection, then $$\label{eqn:tildeomega1} \tilde{\omega}=2\,\varrho\,^{1/2}\,{\pi'}^*(\omega)+\frac{\imath}{•2\,\varrho^{3/2}} \,\partial\varrho\wedge \overline{\partial}\varrho.$$ The contact action $\mu^X:T\times X\rightarrow X$ extends to an holomorphic unitary action $\mu^{A^\vee}:T\times A^\vee_0\rightarrow A^\vee_0$. \[prop:kahler form Avee\] $\tilde{\omega}$ is a $\mu^{A^\vee}$-invariant exact Kähler form on $A^\vee_0$. Since $\mu^{A^\vee}$ preserves both $\varrho$ and the complex structure, by its definition $\tilde{\omega}$ is a $\mu^{A^\vee}$-invariant closed $(1,1)$-form. Thus we need only prove that $\tilde{\omega}$ is non-degenerate. The unique connection compatible with both $h$ and the holomorphic structure determines an invariant decomposition $$\label{eqn:generatig fileds Avee} TA^\vee_0=Hor(A^\vee_0)\oplus Ver(A^\vee_0),$$ where $$\label{eqn:horizontal and vertical} Hor(A^\vee_0):=\ker(\partial\varrho),\quad Ver(A^\vee_0):=\ker (\mathrm{d}\pi')\subset TA^\vee$$ denote the horizontal and vertical tangent bundles. Then $Hor(A^\vee_0)$ and $Ver(A^\vee_0)$ are complex vector subbundles of $TA^\vee_0$, and by (\[eqn:tildeomega1\]) they are orthogonal for $\tilde{\omega}$. Furthermore, the first summand on the right hand side of (\[eqn:tildeomega1\]) is symplectic on $Hor(A^\vee_0)$ and vanishes on $Ver(A^\vee_0)$, and conversely for the second summand. Hence $\tilde{\omega}$ is non-degenerate. \[cor:ml hamiltonian\] $\mu^{A^\vee}$ is Hamiltonian on $(A^\vee_0,\tilde{\omega})$, with moment map $$\label{eqn:tildePhi} \tilde{\Phi}:=\varrho^{1/2}\cdot\Phi\circ \pi': A^\vee_0\rightarrow \mathfrak{t},$$ where $\pi':A^\vee_0\rightarrow M$ is the projection. \[Proof of Corollary \[cor:ml hamiltonian\]\] Given an exact symplectic manifold $(R,\eta)$ with $\eta=-\mathrm{d}\lambda$, and a smooth Lie group action $\varsigma:G\times N\rightarrow N$ preserving $\lambda$, it is well-known that $\varsigma$ is Hamiltonian, with moment map $\Upsilon:R\rightarrow \mathfrak{g}^\vee$ determined by the relation $$\upsilon^\xi:=\langle\Upsilon,\xi\rangle =\iota(\xi_R)\,\lambda\in \mathcal{C}^\infty(M).$$ In our setting, $R=A^\vee_0$, $\varsigma=\mu^{A^\vee}$, $\eta=\tilde{\omega}$ and, in view of (\[eqn:tildeomega\]), $$\lambda=-2\,\left(\Im \left(\partial\varrho^{1/2}\right)\right)= \imath\,\left(\partial\varrho^{1/2}-\overline{\partial}\varrho^{1/2}\right);$$ furthermore, for any $\xi\in \mathfrak{t}$ we have $$\xi_{A^\vee}=\xi_M^\sharp-\langle\Phi\circ\pi',\xi\rangle\, \partial_\vartheta.$$ Since $\xi_{M}^\sharp$ is a section of $Hor(A^\vee_0)$, it follows from (\[eqn:horizontal and vertical\]) that $\iota(\xi_{M}^\sharp)\,\partial\varrho=0$. Furthermore, one can verify that $\imath(\partial_\theta)\,\partial\rho=\imath\,\rho$. Putting this together, we conclude that $\mu^{A^\vee}$ is Hamiltonian, and furthermore the component $\tilde{•\phi}^\xi=\langle\tilde{\Phi},\xi\rangle$ of the moment map is $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\phi}^\xi&=&\imath\cdot\varrho^{-1/2}\, \iota\left(\xi_{M}^\sharp-(\varphi^\xi\circ \pi')\,\partial _\theta\right)\,\left(\partial\varrho- \overline{\partial}\varrho\right)\\ &=&(\varphi^\xi\circ \pi')\,\varrho^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\{\cdot,\cdot\}_{A^\vee_0}$ denote by Poisson brackets on $(A^\vee_0,\tilde{\omega})$. Since $\mu^{A^\vee}$ is unitary, in view of (\[eqn:tildePhi\]) we conclude the the following. \[cor:isotropico orbits\] $\{\tilde{\phi}^\xi,\tilde{\phi}^\eta\}$ vanishes, $\forall\,\xi,\eta\in \mathfrak{t}$. In particular, the orbits of $\mu^{A^\vee}$ in $A^\vee_0$ are isotropic for $\tilde{\omega}$. Therefore: \[cor:totally real subspace\] For every $\ell\in A^\vee_0$, $\mathfrak{t}_{A^\vee}(\ell)\subseteq T_\ell A^\vee$ is totally real, that is, $$\mathfrak{t}_{A^\vee}(\ell)\cap J'_\ell\big(\mathfrak{t}_{A^\vee}(\ell)\big)=(0).$$ By Proposition 1.6 and Theorem 1.12 in @sj, Corollary \[cor:ml hamiltonian\] has the following consequences. \[cor:holomorphic slice and complexified stabilizer\] For every $\ell\in A^\vee_0$, the following holds: 1. the stabilizer $\tilde{T}_{\ell}\leqslant \tilde{T}$ of $\ell$ for $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$ is the complexification of of the stabilizer $T_\ell\leqslant T$ of $\ell$ for $\mu^{A^\vee}$; 2. there exists an holomorphic slice for $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ at $\ell$. Let $A^\vee_{lf}\subseteq A^\vee_0$ be the open subset where $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ is locally free. It follows from Proposition 1.6 of @sj and Corollary \[cor:isotropico orbits\] above that the stabilizer in $\tilde{T}$ of any $\ell\in A^\vee_{lf}$ is finite and contained in $T$. \[defn:pointwise proper\] Following @sj, we shall call $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ *proper at* $\ell\in A^\vee_0$ if for all sequences $(\ell_j)\subset A^\vee_0$ and $(\tilde{t}_j)\subset \tilde{T}$ such that $\ell_j\rightarrow \ell$ and $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{t}_j}(\ell_j)$ converges to some point in $A^\vee_0$, $(\tilde{t}_j)$ is convergent in $\tilde{T}$. Let $U\subseteq A^\vee_0$ be a $\tilde{T}$-invariant open set. Then: 1. if $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ is proper at every $\ell\in U$, then so is *a fortiori* $\tilde{\mu}^{U}$; 2. if $\tilde{\mu}^{U}$ is proper at every $\ell\in U$, $\tilde{\mu}^{U}$ is (globally) proper. \[cor:proper action\] Given BA, the following holds: 1. $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ is proper on $A^\vee_{lf}$ (that is, $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_{lf}}$ is proper); 2. $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq A^\vee_{lf}$; 3. $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ is proper on $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ (that is, $\tilde{\mu}^{\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is proper). \[Proof of Corollary \[cor:proper action\]\] We have remarked that the stabilizer in $\tilde{T}$ of any $\ell\in A^\vee_{lf}$ coincides with the stabilizer of $\ell$ in $T$, and therefore it is finite. In view of Theorem 1.22 of @sj, $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ is proper at any $\ell\in A^\vee_{lf}$, and therefore it is proper on $A^\vee_{lf}$. This proves the first statement. We know that $\mu^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is locally free; in other words, $\mu^{A^\vee_0}$ is locally free along $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Therefore, $\mu^{A^\vee_0}$ is locally free on $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=\tilde{T}\cdot X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, because $\tilde{T}$ is Abelian. Therefore, by Corollary \[cor:holomorphic slice and complexified stabilizer\], the stabilizer of any $\ell\in \tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ in $\tilde{T}$ for $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ is finite, since it coincides with the stabilizermof $\ell$ in $T$ for $\mu^{A^\vee_0}$. This proves the second statement. The third statement is a straighforward consequence of the first two. The structure $S^1$-action $\rho^X$ extends to the holomorphic action $$\tilde{\rho}^{A^\vee}:(z,\,\ell)\in\mathbb{C}^*\times A^\vee_0\mapsto z^{-1}\,\ell\in A^\vee_0,$$ whose orbits are the fibers of $A^\vee_0$ over $M$. \[lem:C\*invariance\] $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is $\tilde{\rho}^{A^\vee}$-invariant. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:C\*invariance\]\] Since $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$ and $\tilde{\rho}^{A^\vee}$ commute, it suffices to show that for any $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $z\in \mathbb{C}^*$ we have $z\,x\in \tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Let us set $$C_x:=\left\{z\in \mathbb{C}^*\,:\,z\,x\in \tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\right\}.$$ Then $1\in C_x$ and $C_x$ is open in $\mathbb{C}^*$ because scalar multiplication is continuous and $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is open in $A^\vee$ (Corollary \[cor:open saturation\]). Suppose $z_\infty\in \mathbb{C}^*$ is a limit point of $C_x$. Then there exist $z_1,\,z_2,\ldots\in C_x$ such that $z_i\rightarrow z_\infty$. By definition of $C_x$, for any $i=1,2,\ldots$ we have $z_i\,x\in \tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ for any $i=1,2,\ldots$. By definition of $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, therefore, there exist $\tilde{t}_i\in \tilde{T}$ and $x_i\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ such that $z_i\,x=\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}_{\tilde{t}_i}(x_i)$. Since $A^\vee_{lf}$ in Corollary \[cor:proper action\] is clearly $\mathbb{C}^*$-invariant, we have $z_\infty\,x\in A^\vee_{lf}$. Thus $$\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}_{\tilde{t}_i}(x_i)=z_i\,x\rightarrow z_\infty\,x\in A^\vee_{lf}.$$ By Corollary \[cor:proper action\] and the compactness of $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, perhaps replacing $(\tilde{t}_i)$ and $(x_i)$ by subsequences, we may assume that $\tilde{t}_i\rightarrow \tilde{t}_\infty\in \tilde{T}$ and $x_i\rightarrow x_\infty\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Hence $$z_\infty\,x=\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}_{\tilde{t}_\infty}(x_\infty)\in \tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\,\Rightarrow\,z_\infty\in C_x.$$ We conclude that $C_x=\mathbb{C}^*$ for any $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Let us set, as in the Introduction, $$A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=(\pi')^{-1}(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}),\quad \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\tilde{T}\cdot A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}.$$ \[cor:tildeXnu vs tildeAnu\] $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. \[Proof of Corollary \[cor:tildeXnu vs tildeAnu\]\] Since $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subset A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, clearly $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. On the other hand, $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is $\mathbb{C}^*$-invariant by Lemma \[lem:C\*invariance\] and contains $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, hence $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\supseteq A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Since $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is $\tilde{T}$-invariant, we also have $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\supseteq \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. It follows from Lemma \[lem:C\*invariance\] that $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is the inverse image of a $\tilde{T}$-invariant open set of $M$. More precisely, let $$M'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\tilde{T}\cdot M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq M.$$ Since $\pi'$ is a submersion and intertwines $\tilde{\mu}^M$ and $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$, we conclude the following: \[cor:Mprimenu\] $M'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is open in $M$ and $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=(\pi')^{-1}(M'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$. As in the Introduction, let $\tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq M$ be the dense open subset of stable points for $\gamma^M$. Obviously $\tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is $\tilde{\gamma}^M$-invariant (notation is as in the Introduction and §\[sctn:Mnu\]). \[lem:XnuMnuinv\] $\tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=M'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:XnuMnuinv\]\] Since $\mathbf{0}\in \imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp$ is a regular value of $\Phi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$, $\tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}= \tilde{T}^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\cdot M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Hence trivially $\tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}= \tilde{T}^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\cdot M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq \tilde{T}\cdot M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=M'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. To prove the converse inclusion it suffices to check that $\tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is $\tilde{T}$-invariant. For $k=1,2,\ldots$, let $\tilde{\hat{\mu}}^{(k)}$ be the representation of $\tilde{T}$ on $H^0(M,A^{\otimes k})$ induced by $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$, and let $H^0(M,A^{\otimes k})^{T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}}\subseteq H^0(M,A^{\otimes k})$ be the subspace of those sections that are invariant under $T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$ (equivalently, $\tilde{T}^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$). Then $m\in \tilde{M}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ if and only if for some $k=1,2,\ldots$ there exists $\sigma\in H^0(M,A^{\otimes k})^{T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}}$ such that $\sigma (m)\neq 0$. Since $\tilde{T}$ is Abelian, $\tilde{\hat{\mu}}^{(k)}_{\tilde{t}}(\sigma)\in H^0(M,A^{\otimes k})^{T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}}$ for any $\tilde{t}\in \tilde{T}$; therefore, if $m\in M$ is stable for $\gamma^M$, then so is $\tilde{\mu}^M_{\tilde{t}}(m)$, for any $\tilde{t}\in \tilde{T}$. In the following, we shall write $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ for $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Since $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$ is holomorphic, proper, effective and locally free on $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, we reach the following conclusion. \[cor:complex quotient\] If BA \[ba:transv\] holds, then $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/\tilde{T}$ is a compact and connected orbifold of complex dimension $d+1-r$, and the projection $$\label{eqn:projection} p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$$ is a principal $V$-bundle with structure group $\tilde{T}$. Since $\tilde{T}$ acts properly, holomorphically and locally freely on $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a connected complex orbifold of dimension $d+1-r$. Furthermore, by definition of $\tilde{X}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})=N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Hence $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is compact. \[rem:Bnu\] The holomorphic slices in Corollary \[cor:holomorphic slice and complexified stabilizer\] provide local uniformizing charts for $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Associated to $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and the character $\tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ there is an holomorphic orbifold line bundle $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. The isomorphism between $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- We shall see that $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ has a natural complex structure, and that the pairs $(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}',B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}')$ and $(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ in Corollaries \[cor:Nnuprime orbifold\] and \[cor:complex quotient\] are naturally isomorphic as complex orbifolds and orbifold line bundles. If $F\subseteq A^\vee_0$ is an holomorphic slice for $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$ as in Corollary \[cor:holomorphic slice and complexified stabilizer\], let $J^F$ be its complex structure. Then $(F,J^F)$ is a complex submanifold of $(A^\vee_0,J')$, and provides a local uniformizing chart for the complex orbifold $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. On the other hand, given $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ let $F\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ be a slice at $x$ for the action $\mu^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}:T\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ induced by $\mu^{X}$. The stabilizer $T_x\leqslant T$ of $x$ in $T$ is a finite subgroup of $T$, and by Corollary \[cor:holomorphic slice and complexified stabilizer\] $T_x=\tilde{T}_x$ (the stabilizer in $\tilde{T}$). If $\epsilon>0$, let $F_{\epsilon}\subseteq F$ be the intersection of $F$ with an open ball centered at $x$ and radius $\epsilon$, in the Kähler metric on $A^\vee_0$ associated to $\tilde{\omega}$ in (\[eqn:tildeomega1\]). The proof of the following will be omitted. \[prop:slices TtildeT\] If $\epsilon>0$ is suitably small, $F_{\epsilon}$ is a slice for of $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$. Certainly $F$ is not a complex submanifold of $A^\vee_0$, and in fact it does not contain any complex submanifold of positive dimension. Nonetheless, there is a natural complex structure $J^F$ on it, that may be described as follows. If $\ell\in \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, the tangent space to the $\tilde{T}$-orbit of $\ell$, $\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee_0}(\ell)\subseteq T_\ell A^\vee_0$, is an $r$-dimensional complex subspace; let $S_\ell\subset T_\ell A^\vee_0$ be the orthocomplement of $\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee_0}(\ell)$ for the Riemannian metric associated to (\[eqn:tildeomega1\]). Thus $S_\ell$ is a complex subspace of $T_\ell A^\vee_0$, of dimension $d+1-r$, and we have a smoothly varying direct sum decomposition $T_\ell A^\vee=\tilde{t}_{A^\vee}(\ell)\oplus S_\ell$. Globally on $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, this yields a vector bundle decomposition $T A^\vee=\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}\oplus S$. Projecting along $\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}$, we obtain a morphism of vector bundles $\Pi:T A^\vee\rightarrow S$ (on $A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$). Let $F$ by any slice for $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ in $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$; in particular, by Proposition \[prop:slices TtildeT\], $F$ might be a slice for $\mu^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$. At any $\ell\in F$, the restriction of $\Pi_\ell$ is an isomorphism of real vector spaces $\Pi^F_\ell:T_\ell F\rightarrow S_\ell$. We may define an almost complex structure $J^F$ on $F$ by declaring $\Pi^F_\ell$ to be an isomorphism of complex vector spaces for each $\ell\in F$. If $F$ is an holomorphic slice, $J^F$ clearly coincides with the complex structure of $F$ as a submaifold of $A^\vee_0$. It is clear that the same $J^F$ would be defined, if instead of $S$ one had chosen another complementary complex subundle $S'$ to $\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee_0}$. The following characterization does not involve the choice of a specific sub-bundle. \[lem:unique JF\] If $\ell\in F$ and $v\in T_\ell F$, then $J^F_\ell(v)$ is uniquely determined by the conditions: - $J^F_\ell(v)\in T_\ell L$; - $J^F_\ell(v)-J'_\ell(v)\in \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell)$. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:unique JF\]\] For $v\in T_\ell A^\vee$, let $v_t\in \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell)$ and $v_s\in S_\ell$ be its components. As both $\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell)$ and $S_\ell$ are complex subspaces for $J'_\ell$, $$J'_\ell (v_s)=J'_\ell(v)_s,\quad J'_\ell (v_t)=J'_\ell(v)_t.$$ By definition of $J^F$ if $v\in T_\ell A^\vee$ then $$J^F_\ell (v)_s=J'_\ell (v_s)=J'_\ell(v)_s.$$ Hence, $$\big(J^F_\ell (v)-J'_\ell (v)\big)_s=J'_\ell(v)_s-J'_\ell (v)_s=0\quad\Rightarrow\quad J^F_\ell (v)-J'_\ell (v)\in \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell).$$ Suppose that $I^F_\ell:T_\ell F\rightarrow T_\ell F$ is another operator such that $I^F_\ell(v)-J'_\ell(v)\in \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell)$ for every $v\in T_\ell F$. Then (by definition of slice) $\forall\,v\in T_\ell F$ we have $$I^F_\ell(v)-J^F_\ell (v)=\left(I^F_\ell(v)-J'_\ell(v)\right)-\left(J^F_\ell(v)-J'_\ell(v)\right) \in T_\ell F\cap \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell)=(0).$$ Consider two slices $F_1,\,F_2\subset \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ for $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ such that $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(F_1)\subseteq p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(F_2)$. Let $\ell_j\in F_j$ be such that $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(\ell_1)=p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(\ell_2)$. Hence there exists $\tilde{t}\in \tilde{T}$ such that $\ell_2=\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{t}}(\ell_1)$. Perhaps after restricting $F_1$, we may find a unique $\mathcal{C}^\infty$ function $f:F_1\rightarrow \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}$, such that $f(\ell_1)=\mathbf{0}$ and $\jmath (\ell):=\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{t}\, e^{f(\ell)}}(\ell)\in F_2$, for all $\ell\in F_1$. Thus $\jmath:F_1\rightarrow F_2$ is an injection in the sense of Satake (@sat1, @sat2). \[lem:slice biholomorphism\] $\jmath:F_1\rightarrow F_2$ is $\left(J^{F_1},J^{F_2}\right)$-holomorphic. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:slice biholomorphism\]\] By local uniqueness, it suffices to prove that $$\mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\jmath:(T_{\ell_1}F_1,J^{F_1}_{\ell_1})\rightarrow (T_{\ell_2}F_2,J^{F_2}_{\ell_2})$$ is $\mathbb{C}$-linear. If $v\in T_{\ell_1}F$, we have $$\mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}f(v)\in \mathfrak{t},\quad \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}f(v)_{A^\vee}\in \mathfrak{X}(A^\vee),\quad \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}f(v)_{A^\vee}(\ell_2)\in \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell_2)\subseteq T_{\ell_2}A^\vee ,$$ and $$\label{eqn:differential dj} \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1} \jmath (v)= \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}f(v)_{A^\vee}(\ell_2)+\mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{t}}(v).$$ If $w,w'\in T_{\ell_2}A^\vee$, we shall write $w\equiv w'$ to mean that $w-w'\in \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell_2)$. By (\[eqn:differential dj\]), we have $ \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1} \jmath (v)\equiv \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{t}}(v)$ for every $v\in T_{\ell_1}F_1$. Replacing $v$ with $J^{F_1}_{\ell_1}(v)$, in view of Lemma \[lem:unique JF\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:chain for dmuj} \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1} \jmath \left(J^{F_1}_{\ell_1}(v)\right)&\equiv & \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{t}}\left(J^{F_1}_{\ell_1}(v)\right)\equiv \mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{t}}\left(J'_{\ell_1}(v)\right)\nonumber\\ &=&J'_{\ell_2}\left(\mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{t}}(v)\right)\equiv J'_{\ell_2}\left(\mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\jmath (v)\right)\equiv J^{F_2}_{\ell_2}\left(\mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\jmath (v)\right).\end{aligned}$$ The first and the last vector in (\[eqn:chain for dmuj\]) belong to $T_{\ell_2}F_2$; hence by Lemma \[lem:unique JF\] $\mathrm{d}_{\ell_1} \jmath \left(J^{F_1}_{\ell_1}(v)\right)= J^{F_2}_{\ell_2}\left(\mathrm{d}_{\ell_1}\jmath (v)\right)$, for all $v\in T_{\ell_1}F_1$. In Lemma \[lem:slice biholomorphism\], we may assume by Corollary \[cor:holomorphic slice and complexified stabilizer\] that $F_2$, say, is holomorphic; hence Lemma \[lem:slice biholomorphism\] implies the following. \[cor:integrable JF\] For any slice $F\subset \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ for $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$, $J^F$ is integrable. We may also take $F=F_1=F_2$ be a slice at $\ell\in A^\vee_0$, and consider the self-injections of $F$ induced by the stabilizer $T_\ell\leqslant T$ of $\ell$. If $\ell\in A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $F\subset A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a slice for $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}$ at $\ell$, then $\tilde{T}_{\ell}$ acts holomorphically on $(F,J^F)$. If we apply these considerations to the slices $F\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ for $\mu^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$, we conclude the following. \[cor:Nnu'complex\] The V-manifold $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ in Corollary \[cor:Nnuprime orbifold\] is complex. Since every $T$-orbit in $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is obviously contained in a unique $\tilde{T}$-orbit in $\tilde{A}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, there is a well-defined map $$\psi:\,T\cdot x\in N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}' \mapsto \tilde{T}\cdot x\in N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}.$$ Let $J^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'}$ and $J^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ be the orbifold complex structures of $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, respectively. \[prop:psi bijective\] $\psi$ is an isomorphism of complex orbifolds $\left(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}',\,J^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'}\right) \rightarrow \left(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},\,J^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\right)$. \[Proof of Proposition \[prop:psi bijective\]\] By Corollary \[cor:tildeXnu vs tildeAnu\], any $\tilde{T}$-orbit in $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ intersects $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$; thus $\psi$ is surjective. To prove that $\psi$ is injective, suppose by contradiction that there exist $x_1,\,x_2\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ such that $x_2\in \tilde{T}\cdot x_1$ (i.e., $\psi (T\cdot x_1)=\psi(T\cdot x_2)$), but $x_2\not\in T\cdot x_1$ (i.e., $T\cdot x_1\neq T\cdot x_2$). Perhaps after replacing $x_2$ with another point in $T\cdot x_2$, we may assume that $x_2=\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{e^{-\boldsymbol{\xi}}}(x_1)$ for some $\boldsymbol{\xi}\in \mathbb{R}^r\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$. We may write uniquely $\boldsymbol{\xi}=\boldsymbol{\xi}'+a\,\boldsymbol{\nu}$, where $\boldsymbol{\xi}'\in \boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp$ and $a\in \mathbb{R}$. Perhaps interchanging $x_1$ and $x_2$, we may assume without loss that $a\ge 0$. Let us set $\boldsymbol{\eta}:=\imath\,\boldsymbol{\xi}\in \mathfrak{t}$. Considering the associated vector fields $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{A^\vee},\,\boldsymbol{\eta}_{A^\vee}\in \mathfrak{X}(A^\vee)$ we have $-\boldsymbol{\xi}_{A^\vee}=J'(\boldsymbol{\eta}_{A^\vee})$; hence $-\boldsymbol{\xi}_{A^\vee}$ is the gradient vector field of the Hamiltonian function $\tilde{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\eta}}= \langle\tilde{\Phi},\boldsymbol{\eta}\rangle$, where $\tilde{\Phi}$ is as in (\[eqn:tildePhi\]). Since $x_1\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, we have $\tilde{\Phi}(x_1)=\imath\,\lambda\,\boldsymbol{\nu}$ for some $\lambda>0$, hence $\tilde{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\eta}}(x_1)=\lambda\,a\,\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2\ge 0$. Since $\tilde{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\eta}}$ is strictly increasing along its gradient flow where the gradient is non-vanishing, $$\label{eqn:gradient vector field} \tilde{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\left(\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{e^{-t\,\boldsymbol{\xi}}}(x_1)\right) > \tilde{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\eta}}(x_1)\ge 0\quad \forall \,t>0.$$ On the other hand, we have $$\boldsymbol{\eta}_{A^\vee_0}=\boldsymbol{\eta}_M^\sharp-\tilde{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\,\partial_\theta \quad\Rightarrow\quad -\boldsymbol{\xi}_{A^\vee}= \big(J\boldsymbol{\eta}_M)^\sharp + \tilde{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\,r\,\partial_r.$$ Here $r\,\partial_r$ is the generator of the 1-parameter group of diffeomorphisms $\ell\mapsto e^t\,\ell$. With $\varrho$ as in (\[eqn:tildeomega\]), for every $t>0$ we have $$-\boldsymbol{\xi}_{A^\vee}(\varrho)\left(\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{e^{-t\,\boldsymbol{\xi}}}(x_1)\right) =\tilde{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\eta}} \left(\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{e^{-t\,\boldsymbol{\xi}}}(x_1) \right) \,r\,\partial_r\varrho\left(\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{e^{-t\,\boldsymbol{\xi}}}(x_1)\right)>0.$$ It follows that $\varrho\left(\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{e^{-t\,\boldsymbol{\xi}}}(x_1)\right)>\varrho (x_1)=1$ for $t>0$; taking $t=1$, we conclude that $x_2\not\in X$, a contradiction. Hence $\psi$ is a bijection. Let us verify that $\psi$ is a homeomorphism. The open sets of $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ have the form $U/T$, where $U\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is open and $T$-invariant, and the open sets of $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ have the form $\tilde{U}/\tilde{T}$, where $\tilde{U}\subseteq A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is open and $\tilde{T}$-invariant. The previous argument shows that each $\tilde{T}$-orbit in $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ intersects $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ in a single $T$-orbit. One can see from this (and the definition of $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$) that there is a bijection between the family of $\tilde{T}$-invariant open sets $\tilde{U}$ in $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and the family of $T$-invariant open sets $U$ in $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ given by $\tilde{U}\mapsto U:=\tilde{U}\cap X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, with inverse $ U\mapsto \tilde{U}:=\tilde{T}\cdot U$. Given any such $\tilde{U}$, we have $ \psi^{-1}(\tilde{U}/\tilde{T})= U/T\subseteq N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$, implying that $\psi$ is continuous. Similarly, given any such $U$ we have $ \psi(U/T)=\tilde{U}/\tilde{T} $, implying that $\psi$ is open. Hence $\psi$ is a homeomorphism. To conclude that $\psi$ is an isomorphism of complex orbifolds, it suffices to verify that its local expressions in uniformizing charts are biholomorphisms; actually, it suffices to do so for corresponding defining families in the sense of @sat1 and @sat2 that cover $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Let $F$ be a slice at $x$ for $\mu^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ at some $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$; by Proposition \[prop:slices TtildeT\], perhaps after shrinking $F$ if necessary, we may assume that $F$ is also a slice at $x$ for $\tilde{\mu}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$. Hence $(F,J^F)$ is a uniformizing chart of both $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. By definition of $\psi$ and the previous considerations, the identity $\mathrm{id}_F:F\rightarrow F$ is a local representative map of $\psi$, and it is obviously biholomorphic $(F,J^F)\rightarrow (F,J^F)$. The sheaf of holomorphic functions on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is defined equivalently by the $\tilde{T}$-invariant holomorphic functions on $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ or the $T_{\ell}$-invariant holomorphic functions on the slices $(F,J^F)$. Let us briefly clarify this point. Since $(F,J^F)$ is generally not a complex submanifold of $(A^\vee,J')$, arbitrary holomorphic functions on the saturation $\tilde{T}\cdot F$ needn't restrict to holomorphic functions on $(F,J^F)$. However, this does happens if we restrict to invariant holomorphic functions. \[defn:inv hol fctns\] Suppose that $\ell\in A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and that $F\subseteq A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a slice at $\ell$ for $\tilde{\mu}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$. Let us adopt the following notation. 1. $\mathcal{O}(F)$ is the ring of $J^F$-holomorphic functions on $F$; 2. $\mathcal{O}(F)^{T_\ell}\subseteq \mathcal{O}(F)$ is the subring of $T_\ell$-invariant functions in $\mathcal{O}(F)$; 3. $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{T}\cdot F)$ is the ring of $J'$-holomorphic functions on the saturation of $F$ under $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$; 4. $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{T}\cdot F)^{\tilde{T}}\subseteq \mathcal{O}(\tilde{T}\cdot F)$ is the subring of $\tilde{\mu}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$-invariant functions. Then we have the following, whose prooof will be omitted (see the argument for Proposition \[prop:restrictionCRolo\]). \[lem:natural iso inv hol\] In the situation of Definition \[defn:inv hol fctns\], restriction yields an isomorphism $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{T}\cdot F)^{\tilde{T}}\rightarrow \mathcal{O}(F)^{T_\ell}$. Holomorphic and CR functions on $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a CR submanifold of $M$, and the maximal complex sub-bundle $\mathcal{H}(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})\subseteq TM_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ has complex dimension $d+1-r$, and is as follows. If $m\in M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $(\tilde{t}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}^{r-1})_M(m)\subseteq T_mM_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a complex subspace of dimension $r-1$, since $\tilde{\gamma}^M$ is locally free at $m$. Then $$\mathcal{H}(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_m= (\tilde{t}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}^{r-1})_M(m)^{\perp_{h_m}},$$ where $h_m=g_m-\imath\,\omega_m$ is the Hermitian product on $T_mM$ associated to the Kähler metric. Similarly, $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a CR submanifold of $A^\vee$. The maximal complex sub-bundle $\mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})\subset TX_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is as follows. If $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $m=\pi(x)$, then $$\label{eqnHXnudef} \mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_x=\mathcal{H}(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_m^\sharp.$$ \[defn:equivariant CRholo\] Let be given $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\in \mathbb{Z}^r$. For any $\tilde{T}$-invariant open subset $\tilde{U}\subseteq \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, let $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{U})_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ be the ring of holomorphic functions $\tilde{S}: \tilde{U}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ such that $$\label{eqn:olo equivariante} \tilde{S}\left(\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee} _{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}^{-1}}(\ell)\right) =\tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(\tilde{\mathbf{t}})\, \tilde{S}(\ell)\qquad (\tilde{\mathbf{t}}\in \tilde{T},\, \ell\in \tilde{U}).$$ For any $T$-invariant open subset $U\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, let let $\mathcal{CR}(U)_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ be the ring of CR functions on $U$ satisfying $$\label{eqn:CR equivariante} S\left(\mu^c_{\mathbf{t}^{-1}}(x)\right)=\chi_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(\mathbf{t})\,S(x)\qquad (\mathbf{t}\in T,\,x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}).$$ \[prop:restrictionCRolo\] With notation in Definition \[defn:equivariant CRholo\], suppose that $U=\tilde{U}\cap X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Then restriction yields a ring isomorphism $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{U})_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\rightarrow \mathcal{CR}(U)_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$. \[cor:iso holo CR global\] Restriction yields an isomorphism $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\rightarrow \mathcal{CR}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$. \[Proof of Proposition \[prop:restrictionCRolo\]\] Clearly if $\tilde{S}\in \mathcal{O}(\tilde{U})_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ then $S:=\left.\tilde{S}\right|_U\in \mathcal{CR}(U)_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$. Thus the ring homomorphim in the statement is well-defined and obviously injective. To prove surjectivity, suppose conversely that $S\in \mathcal{CR}(U)_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$. Let us define $\tilde{S}:\tilde{U}=\tilde{T}\cdot U\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ by setting $$\label{eqn:holo extension} \tilde{S}\left(\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}}(x)\right)= \tilde{\chi}_{-\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(\tilde{\mathbf{t}})\,S(x) = \tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} (\tilde{\mathbf{t}})^{-1}\,S(x)\qquad (\tilde{\mathbf{t}}\in \tilde{T},\quad x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}).$$ To verify that (\[eqn:holo extension\]) is well-defined, suppose that $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_1}(x_1)=\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_2}(x_2)$ with $\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_j\in \tilde{T}$ and $x_j\in U$. By the argument in the proof of Proposition \[prop:psi bijective\], $\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_2^{-1}\,\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_1\in T$. Therefore $$S(x_2)=\chi_{-\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left(\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_2^{-1}\, \tilde{\mathbf{t}}_1 \right)\, S(x_1)= \tilde{\chi}_{-\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left(\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_2\right)^{-1}\, \tilde{\chi}_{-\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left(\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_1 \right)\,S(x_1).$$ By construction, $\tilde{S}$ satisfies (\[eqn:olo equivariante\]) and restricts to $S$ on $U$. To prove that $S\mapsto\tilde{S}$ inverts restriction it remains to verify that $\tilde{S}$ is holomorphic, i.e. that $\mathrm{d}_\ell \tilde{S}$ is $\mathbb{C}$-linear for any $\ell\in \tilde{U}$. By Corollary \[cor:tildeXnu vs tildeAnu\], the map $$\mathcal{F} :(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)\in\tilde{T}\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\mapsto \tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee_0}_{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}}(x)\in \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$$ is surjective. In fact, $\mathcal{F} $ exhibits $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ as the quotient of $\tilde{T}\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ by the free action of $T$ given by $$\label{eqn:free T action} \mathbf{t}\cdot \left(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},\,x\right) :=\left(\tilde{\mathbf{t}}\,\mathbf{t}^{-1},\,\mu^X_{\mathbf{t}}(x)\right).$$ Furthermore, $\mathcal{F} (\tilde{T}\times U)=\tilde{U}$. For every $\tilde{\mathbf{t}}\in \tilde{T}$ let us set $$X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}}:= \mathcal{F}\left(\left\{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}\right\}\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\right)= \tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}_{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}}\left( X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\right).$$ Again by the proof of Proposition \[prop:psi bijective\] we have $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_1}= X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_2}$ if $\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_1^{-1}\,\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_2\in T$, and $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_1}\cap X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}_2}=\emptyset$ otherwise. Clearly $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}}$ is a CR submanifold of $A^\vee$, and its CR bundle $\mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}})$ is as follows. If $\ell=\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}}$, then $$\mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}})_\ell =\mathrm{d}_x \tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}_{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}} \big( \mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_x\big).$$ If $\tilde{\mathbf{t}}\in \tilde{T}$, let us identify $T_{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}}\tilde{T}\cong \tilde{•\mathfrak{t}}$ in the standard manner. For $(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},\,x)\in \tilde{T}\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, let us consider the vector subspace $$\mathcal{K}(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x):= \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}\times \mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_x \subseteq T_{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}}\tilde{T}\times T_xX_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \cong T_{(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)} (\tilde{T}\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}).$$ The distribution $\mathcal{K}\subseteq T(\tilde{T}\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ is invariant under (\[eqn:free T action\]) and is naturally a complex vector bundle; furthermore, $\mathrm{d}\mathcal{F}$ yields an isomorphism of complex vector bundles $\mathcal{K}\rightarrow \mathcal{F}^*(T\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$. More explicitly, if $\ell=\mathcal{F} (\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)$ then $$\label{eqn:dFtxiso} \left.\mathrm{d}_{(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)}\mathcal{F} \right| _{\mathcal{K}(\tilde{t},x)}:\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}\times \mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_x\rightarrow \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}_{A^\vee}(\ell) \oplus \mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{\tilde{\mathbf{t}}})_\ell =T_\ell A^\vee$$ is an isomorphism of complex vector spaces, respecting the direct sum decompositions on both sides. Given $S\in \mathcal{CR}(U)_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$, let us consider the complex function $\hat{S}$ on $\tilde{T}\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ given by $$\label{eqn:defnShat} \hat{S}\left(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},\,x\right):= \tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} (\tilde{\mathbf{t}})^{-1}\,S(x).$$ Then $\hat{S}=\tilde{S}\circ \mathcal{F} $. Let us assume that $\ell=\mathcal{F} (\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)$. We have $$\left.\mathrm{d}_{(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)}\hat{S}\right| _{\mathcal{H}(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)} =\mathrm{d}_{\ell}\tilde{S}\circ \left.\mathrm{d}_{(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)}\mathcal{F} \right| _{\mathcal{K}(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)}: \mathcal{K}(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)\rightarrow\mathbb{C}.$$ Hence to prove that $\mathrm{d}_{\ell}\tilde{S}: T_\ell A^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is $\mathbb{C}$-linear it suffices to show that $\mathrm{d}_{(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)}\hat{S}$ is $\mathbb{C}$-linear on $\mathcal{K}_{(\tilde{\mathbf{t}},x)} =\tilde{•\mathfrak{t}}\times \mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_x$; to do so, in turn it is sufficient to verify $\mathbb{C}$-linearity on each summand $\tilde{\mathfrak{t}}$ and $\mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_x$ separately. This follows from (\[eqn:defnShat\]), since $\tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{{\nu}}}$ is holomorphic (implying $\mathbb{C}$-linearity on the first summand) and $S$ is CR (implying $\mathbb{C}$-linearity on the second summand). The orbifold line bundles $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $B'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have seen that the restrictions of $\mu^X$ to $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and of $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$ to $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ are locally free, effective and proper actions of $T$ and $\tilde{T}$, respectively, and that the corresponding quotients $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}':=X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/T$ and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/\tilde{T}$ are naturally isomorphic complex orbifolds. Furthermore, the projections $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}':X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \rightarrow N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ and $p_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}: \tilde{A}^\nu_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \rightarrow N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ are principal $V$-bundles with structure group $T$ and $\tilde{T}$, respectively. Associated to the characters $\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:T\rightarrow S^1$ and $\tilde{\chi}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:\tilde{T}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$, we have $1$-dimensional representations of $T$ and $\tilde{T}$, respectively; we shall denote either one by $\mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. The product actions $\mu^{X\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ and $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ are therefore also locally free, effective and proper on $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ respectively. Hence the quotients $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}':=X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times_{T}\mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times_{\tilde{T}}\mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ are orbifold line bundles on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Let us denote by $$\label{eqn:orbibundles} P_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}':B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'\rightarrow N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'\quad \text{and}\quad P_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$$ the respective projections. \[lem:fetta prodotto\] Suppose $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and let $F\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ be a slice for the restriction of $\mu^X$ to $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Then $F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a slice at $(x,0)$ for the restriction of $\mu^{X\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ to $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. The collection of all these slices yields a defining family for $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$. Similarly, suppose $\ell\in \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and let $F\subseteq \tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ be a slice at $\ell$ for the restriction of $\tilde{\mu}^{A^\vee}$ to $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Then $F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a slice at $(\ell,0)$ for the restriction of $\tilde{•\mu}^{A^\vee\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ to $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. The collection of all these slices yields a defining family for $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:fetta prodotto\]\] Let us consider the former statement, the proof of the latter being similar. Since $F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is transverse to the $T$-orbits in $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, the map $h:T\times (F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}) \rightarrow X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ induced by the diagonal action is a local diffeomorphism onto the open saturation $T\cdot (F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times \mathbb{C}$. Clearly we have the equality of stabilizers $T_{(x,0)}=T_x$. Furthermore, suppose $(y,w)\in F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $\mathbf{t}\in T$. Then $$\mu^{X\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}_{\mathbf{t}}(y,w)= \left(\mu^{X}_{\mathbf{t}}(y), \chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(\mathbf{t})\,w\right) \in F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$$ if and only if $\mu^X_{\mathbf{t}}(y)\in F$, that is, if and only if $\mathbf{t}\in T_x$. Hence $h$ descends to a diffeomorphism $$\overline{h}: \big(T\times (F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})\big)/T_x\rightarrow T\cdot (F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}),$$ where $T_x$ acts antidiagonally on $T\times (F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$. \[cor:local quotient\] $F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ with the diagonal action of $T_x$ uniformizes the open set $(F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})/T_x\subseteq B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}$. The collection of all these uniformizing charts is a defnining family for the orbifold line bundle $B'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. A similar statement holds fo $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Given the complex structure $J^F$ on each $F$ (Lemma \[lem:unique JF\]), we obtain a product complex structure on $F\times \mathbb{C}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Hence both $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ and $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ are complex orbifolds of complex dimension $d+2-r$. Since any $T$-orbit in $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times\mathbb{C}$ is contained in a unique $\tilde{T}$-orbit in $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times\mathbb{C}$, there is a natural continuous map $\tilde{\psi}:B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'\rightarrow B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. The proof of Proposition \[prop:psi bijective\] can be adapted to yield the following: \[prop:tildepsi bijective\] $\tilde{\psi}$ is an isomorphism of complex orbifolds, and $\psi\circ P'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=P_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\circ \tilde{\psi}$. The orbifold circle bundle $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ ------------------------------------------------- We need an alternative description of $B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$. Consider the intermediate quotient $$Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp};$$ then $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is compact orbifold, of (real) dimension $2\,(d+1-r)+1$, and the integrable and invariant CR structure on $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ descends to an integrable CR structure on $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. We shall denote by $\mathcal{H}(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ the CR bundle of $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Let $T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\leqslant T$ be the connected compact subgroup of $T$ associated to the Lie subalgebra $\mathrm{span}(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu})\subseteq \mathfrak{t}$. Given that $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ is coprime, we have a Lie group isomorphism $$\label{eqn:kappanu} \kappa_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} : e^{\imath\,\vartheta}\in S^1\mapsto e^{\imath\,\vartheta\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}:= \left(e^{\imath\,\vartheta\,\nu_1},\ldots,e^{\imath\,\vartheta\,\nu_r}\right)\in T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}.$$ Let us set $\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=T/T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\cong T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/(T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp})$. Suppose $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, and let $F\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ be a slice at $x$ for the restriction of $\gamma^X$ to $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. We can view $T\times F$ as a uniformizing chart for the smooth orbifold $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, with uniformized open set $T\cdot F=(T\times F)/T_x$. Then $\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times F$ is a uniformizing chart for $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, covering the open set $(T\cdot F)/T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$. Explicitly, $T_x$ act effectively on $\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times F$ by $$t_0\cdot \left(\overline{t},f\right):=\left(\overline{t}\,\overline{t}_0^{-1},\mu^X_{t_0}(f)\right),$$ where for any $t\in T$ we have set $\overline{t}=t\,T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\in \overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Then the map $$\gamma: (\overline{t},f)\in \overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times F\mapsto T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\cdot \mu^X_t(f)\in (T\cdot F)/T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\subseteq Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$$ induces a homeomorphism $(T\cdot F)/T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}=(\overline{T}^1\times F)/T_\ell$. Letting $F$ vary, we obtain a defining family for $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Furthermore, $\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ acts effectively on $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, and $N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$; let $\sigma_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ be the projection. For each slice $F\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, as above, the local representation of $\sigma_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is the projection $\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\times F \rightarrow F$. Thus $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a principal $V$-bundle over $N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, with structure group $\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Being trivial on $T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$, $\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ descends to a character $\chi'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow S^1$. \[lem:chinu'iso\] Given that $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ is coprime, $\chi'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a Lie group isomorphism. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:chinu'iso\]\] Since $\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cong T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}/\left(T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\right)$, the statement is equivalent to the equality $$\label{eqn:kernel chi nu} \ker(\left.\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\right|_{T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}) =T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp};$$ since clearly $T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\subseteq \ker(\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$, we need only prove that $\ker(\left.\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\right|_{T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}) \subseteq T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$. Since $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ is coprime, there exists $\mathbf{k}=\begin{pmatrix} k_1&\cdots&k_r \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{Z}^r$ such that $\langle\boldsymbol{\nu},\mathbf{k}\rangle=\sum_{j=1}^r k_j\,\nu_j=1$. Let $\kappa_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ be as in (\[eqn:kappanu\]). Then $$\label{eqn:compositionknu} \chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\circ \kappa_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \left( e^{\imath\,\vartheta}\right) = \chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\left( e^{\imath\,\vartheta\,\boldsymbol{\nu}} \right) =e^{\imath\,\vartheta\,\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2} \quad \left(e^{\imath\,\vartheta}\in S^1\right). %$$ Hence if $e^{\imath\,\vartheta\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}\in \ker(\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$, then we may assume $\vartheta=\vartheta_j:=2\,\pi\,j/\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2$ for some $j=0,\ldots,\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2-1$. We have $$\langle\vartheta_j\,\boldsymbol{\nu},\boldsymbol{\nu}\rangle = \frac{2\,\pi\,j}{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2} \,\langle\,\boldsymbol{\nu},\boldsymbol{\nu}\rangle =2\,\pi\,j =2\,\pi\,j \,\langle \mathbf{k},\boldsymbol{\nu}\rangle,$$ so that $ \vartheta_j\,\boldsymbol{\nu}-2\,\pi\,j\,\mathbf{k}\in \boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp $. Thus $$e^{\imath\,\vartheta_j\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}= e^{\imath\,[\vartheta_j\,\boldsymbol{\nu}-2\,\pi\,j\,\mathbf{k}]} \in T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp} .$$ Since $k_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is an isomorphism, (\[eqn:compositionknu\]) implies the following. \[cor:cardinalityinters\] Assuming that $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ is coprime, $$\left|T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}\cap T^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\right|= \|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2.$$ Given the isomorphism $\chi'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}: \overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cong S^1$, we shall view $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ as a principal $V$-bundle over $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ with structure group $S^1$. Let us denote by $$\label{eqn:defnrhoYnu} \sigma^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}:S^1\times Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$$ the corresponding action. Let $$\label{eqn:defnQnu} Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$$ be the projection. Then $U$ is a $T$-invariant open subset of $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ if and only if its image $Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(U)$ is a $\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cong S^1$-invariant open subset of $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. It follows (recall the proof of Proposition \[prop:psi bijective\]) that there is a bijective correspondence between $\tilde{T}$-invariant open subsets $\tilde{U}\subseteq\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $T$-invariant open subsets $U\subseteq X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $S^1$-invariant open subsets $\overline{U}\subseteq Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, given by $U;=\tilde{U}\cap X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $\overline{U}:=Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(U)$. The character $\chi'_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}=(\chi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}')^k:\overline{T}^1_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \rightarrow S^1$ corresponds to the endomorphism $\chi_k:g\in S^1\mapsto g^k\in S^1$. Let us denote by $\mathcal{CR}(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ the collection of all CR functions on $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, and for any $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ let us set $$\label{eqn:kth isotype Ynu} \mathcal{CR}(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_k= \left\{f\in \mathcal{CR}(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})\,:\, f\circ \sigma^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}_{e^{-\imath\,\theta}}=e^{\imath\,k\,\theta}\,f,\quad \forall\,e^{\imath\,\theta}\in S^1\right\}.$$ Using that the CR structure of $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is obtained by descending the invariant CR structure of $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, we can complement Proposition \[prop:restrictionCRolo\] and Corollary \[cor:iso holo CR global\] by the following isomorphisms induced by pull-back: $$\label{eqn:restrictionCRolo} \mathcal{O}\big(\tilde{U}\big)_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cong \mathcal{CR}(U)_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}} \cong\mathcal{CR}\left( \overline{U} \right)_k.$$ Letting $H^0(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ denote the space of holomorphic sections of the orbifold line bundle $B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, we conclude that $$\label{eqn:restrictionCRolosections} H^0(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}) \cong \mathcal{O}\big(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\big)_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cong \mathcal{CR}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}} \cong\mathcal{CR}\left( Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \right)_k.$$ The induced Kähler structure of $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ ------------------------------------------------------ We shall see that $P_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a positive holomorphic $V$-line bundle. In view of Propositions \[prop:psi bijective\] and \[prop:tildepsi bijective\] we may equivalently consider $P'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:B'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. With $\alpha$ as in (\[eqn:key properties alpha\]), let $\alpha^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}:=\jmath_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^*(\alpha)$, where $$\label{eqn:defnjmathnu} \jmath_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\hookrightarrow X$$ is the inclusion. Then $\alpha^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is $T$-invariant, and by definition of $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ for any $\boldsymbol{\xi}\in \boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp$ we have $$\iota\big((\imath\,\boldsymbol{\xi})_{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\big)\,\alpha^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}} =\jmath_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^*\big( \iota\big((\imath\,\boldsymbol{\xi})_{X}\big)\,\alpha \big)= -\left\langle \Phi,\imath\,\boldsymbol{\xi}\right\rangle \circ \jmath_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}= 0.$$ Hence $\alpha^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is the pull-back of an orbifold 1-form $\alpha^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ on $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Similarly, being $T$-invariant, $\Phi$ descends to a smooth function $\overline{\Phi} : Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}^\vee$; hence $\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=\langle\Phi,\,\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu}\rangle$ descends to a smooth function $\overline{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Clearly, $$\label{eqn:iotaYnu} \iota\big((\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu})_{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\big)\, \alpha^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}=-\overline{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}.$$ Let us define $$\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:=\frac{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}{\overline{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\, \alpha^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}},$$ and let $-\delta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\in \mathfrak{X}(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ be the infintesimal generator of $\sigma^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ in (\[eqn:defnrhoYnu\]). Thus by Corollary \[cor:cardinalityinters\] $$\label{eqn:generator sigma} -\delta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}=\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}\,(\imath\,\boldsymbol{\nu})_{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}.$$ Given (\[eqn:generator sigma\]) and (\[eqn:iotaYnu\]), we conclude the following. \[cor:betaYnuconnection\] $\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is $\sigma^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$-invariant, and $\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(\delta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}})=1$. Hence $\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is a connection 1-form for the principal $V$-bundle $P'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:B'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:dbetanuexpl} \mathrm{d}\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}= \|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2\,\left[\frac{1}{\overline{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\, \mathrm{d}\alpha^{Y_{•\boldsymbol{\nu}}} -\frac{1}{(\overline{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}})^2}\, \mathrm{d}\overline{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\wedge \alpha^{Y_{•\boldsymbol{\nu}}} \right],\end{aligned}$$ and one can also verify that $\iota(\delta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}})\,\mathrm{d}\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=0$ by direct inspection using (\[eqn:generator sigma\]) and (\[eqn:dbetanuexpl\]). Furthermore, the kernel of $\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is the CR bundle of $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$: $$\ker (\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})=\ker(\alpha^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}) =\mathcal{H}(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}).$$ Hence we reach the following conclusion. Let $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ be the projection. \[lem:11formetanu\] There exists a $(1,1)$-form $\eta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'$ such that $\mathrm{d}(\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}) =2\,\pi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^*(\eta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}')$. We shall denote by $\eta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ the corresponding form on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. With the notation of Proposition \[prop:psi bijective\], we have the following. \[prop:orbifold kahler\] $(N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},J^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'}, \eta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}')$ and $(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},J^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}, \eta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ are isomorphic Kähler orbifolds. In particular, $(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},\,\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ is a contact orbifold. \[Proof of Proposition \[prop:orbifold kahler\]\] It suffices to prove that $(N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},J^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}'}, \eta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}')$ is a Kähler orbifold, since the other statements follow directly. The uniformized tangent space of $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ splits as the direct sum $V(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})\oplus H(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$, where $V(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ is the tangent space to the orbits of $\sigma^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$. To check that $\eta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is Kähler, it suffices therefore to verify that the restriction of $\mathrm{d}\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ to $H(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ is compatible with the complex structure. In view of (\[eqn:dbetanuexpl\]) and $T$-invariance, we need only check that the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:dbetanuexplup} Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^*(\mathrm{d}\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})= \|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2\,\jmath_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^*\left(\frac{1}{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\, \mathrm{d}\alpha -\frac{1}{(\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}})^2}\, \mathrm{d}\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\wedge \alpha \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is as in (\[eqn:defnQnu\]) and $\jmath_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ as in (\[eqn:defnjmathnu\]), is compatible with the complex structure of the CR bundle $\mathcal{H}(X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$. Suppose $x\in X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and let $m:=\pi(x)\in M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. The general vector in $\mathcal{H}( X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_x$ has the form $v^\sharp$ for some $v\in \mathcal{H}(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_m$ (see (\[eqnHXnudef\])), and then $J'_x(v^\sharp)=J_m(v)^\sharp$. By (\[eqn:dbetanuexplup\]), for any $v,w\in \mathcal{H}(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_m$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:dbetanuexplup1} Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^*(\mathrm{d}\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_x(v^\sharp,w^\sharp)&=& \frac{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(m)}\, \mathrm{d}_x\alpha(v^\sharp,w^\sharp)= \frac{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(m)}\, 2\,\omega_m(v,w).\end{aligned}$$ The statement follows, since $\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(m)>0$ by definition of $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $\mathcal{H}_m(M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})\subseteq T_mM$ is a complex subspace, and $\omega$ is Kähler. \[cor:polarized kahler orbifold\] $(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ is polarized Kähler orbifold. Here notation is as in Chaper 4 of @bg. By the Kodaira-Baily Vanishing Theorem (@baily, @bg), we obtain the following conclusion. \[cor:vanishing kb\] $H^i(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})=0$, $\forall\,i>0,\, k\gg 0$. An Hamiltonian circle action on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ ------------------------------------------------------ The action $\rho^X:S^1\times X\rightarrow X$ with infinitesimal generator $-\partial_\theta$ in (\[eqn:key properties alpha\]) is the contact lift of the trivial circle action on $M$ corresponding to the moment map $\Phi=1$ (recall (\[eqn:xiX\])). We shall see that $\rho^X$ determines a contact action on $(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},\,\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ and an holomorphic Hamiltonian action on $(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}',J^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}},2\,\eta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}')$, such that the former is the contact lift of the latter by (the orbifold version of) the procedure in (\[eqn:xiX\]), when we regard $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ as an orbifold circle bundle on $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Clearly, $\rho^X$ commutes with $\mu^X$. Hence $\rho^X$ leaves $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ invariant and determines a restricted action $\rho^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}:S^1\times X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. For the same reason $\rho^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ passes to the quotients $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. In other words, $\rho^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ descends to actions $\rho^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}:S^1\times Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $\rho^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}:S^1\times N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, so that the projections $Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}:Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\rightarrow N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ are equivariant. In particular, if $-\partial_\theta^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is the restriction of $-\partial_\theta$ to $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $-\partial_\theta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is the infinitesimal generator of $\rho^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$, and $-\partial_\theta^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is the infinitesimal generator of $\rho^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$, then $\partial_\theta^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ and $\partial_\theta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ are $Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$-related, and similarly $\partial_\theta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ and $\partial_\theta^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ are $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$-related. \[lem:rhoNnuhamiltonian\] $\rho^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is Hamiltonian on $(N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},2\,\eta'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$, with moment map $\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2/\overline{\Phi}^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}+c$, for any $c\in \mathbb{R}$. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:rhoNnuhamiltonian\]\] By $T$-invariance of all terms involved, and the previous remark about the correlations of the generating vector fields, we need only prove that $$-\iota\left(\partial_\theta^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\right)\,Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^*(\mathrm{d}\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})=\mathrm{d}\left(\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2/\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\circ \jmath_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\right),$$ where $\jmath_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is as in (\[eqn:defnjmathnu\]) and $Q_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^*(\mathrm{d}\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ as in (\[eqn:dbetanuexplup\]). We have on a neighborhood of $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$: $$-\iota\left(\partial_\theta\right)\,\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2\,\left(\frac{1}{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\, \mathrm{d}\alpha -\frac{1}{(\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}})^2}\, \mathrm{d}\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\wedge \alpha \right)=-\,\frac{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}{(\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}})^2}\, \mathrm{d}\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}=\mathrm{d}\left(\frac{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}\right),$$ establishing the claim. Thus $-\partial_\theta^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is a Hamiltonian vector field on $(N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},\,2\,\eta'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$, and every choice of $c\in \mathbb{R}$ in Lemma \[lem:rhoNnuhamiltonian\] determines a contact lift $-\widetilde{•\partial_\theta^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}}$ (implicitly depending on $c$) to $(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},\,\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ of $-\partial_\theta^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$, as in (\[eqn:xiX\]). Here $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ plays the role of $X$, $\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ the role of $\alpha$, and $-\partial_\theta^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ the one of $\xi_M$. The role of $-\partial_\theta$ (the infinitesimal generator of $\rho^X$) is played by $-\delta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ (the infinitesimal generator of $\sigma^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$). We need to determine the correct choice of $c$ that determines $\rho^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ as the contact lift of $\rho^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$. \[lem:c=0lift\] We have $\widetilde{•\partial_\theta^{N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}}= \partial_\theta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ if and only if $c=0$. Given an (orbifold) vector field $V$ on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, we shall denote by $V^\natural\in \mathfrak{X}(Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ its horizontal lift to $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ with respect to $\beta_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:c=0lift\]\] On $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ we have by (\[eqn:xiX\]) $$\label{eqn:relation on Xu} \frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}\,\boldsymbol{\nu}_{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}} =\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}\,\boldsymbol{\nu}_{M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}^\sharp -\frac{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}\,\partial_\theta^{X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}.$$ Here $\boldsymbol{\nu}_{M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is the restriction of $\boldsymbol{\nu}_M$ to $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ (a vector field on $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$), and $\boldsymbol{\nu}_{M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}^\sharp$ is its horizontal lift to $X_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Given that $\rho^X$ and $\mu^X$ commute, $[\boldsymbol{\nu}_X,\partial_\theta]=0$ on $X$; this implies $[\boldsymbol{\nu}_M^\sharp,\boldsymbol{\nu}_X]=[\boldsymbol{\nu}_M^\sharp,\partial_\theta]=0$. Furthermore, one has $[\boldsymbol{\nu}_X,\boldsymbol{\gamma}_X]=0$ for every $\boldsymbol{\gamma}\in \mathfrak{t}$, and this implies also $[\boldsymbol{\nu}_M^\sharp,\boldsymbol{\gamma}_X]=0$. Being horizontal and $T^{r-1}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}^\perp}$-invariant, $\boldsymbol{\nu}_{M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}^\sharp/\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$-related to a horizontal vector field on $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$; the latter is $\sigma^{Y^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$-invariant by the above, and therefore it is the horizontal lift $-\upsilon^\natural$ to $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ of a vector field $-\upsilon$ on $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Multiplying both sides of (\[eqn:relation on Xu\]) by $\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2/\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and then pushing down to $Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ we obtain $$\label{eqn:relation on Yu} \upsilon^\natural-\frac{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}{\overline{•\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}}\,\delta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}=-\frac{1}{\overline{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}}\,\boldsymbol{\nu}_{M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}^\sharp-\frac{\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2}{\overline{•\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}}\,\delta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}} = -\partial_\theta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}},$$ and pushing down to $N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ this yields $$\label{eqn:relation on Nu} \upsilon= -\partial_\theta^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}.$$ In view of Lemma \[lem:rhoNnuhamiltonian\], (\[eqn:relation on Nu\]) implies that $\upsilon$ is the Hamiltonian vector field on $(N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},\,2\,\eta'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ of $\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2/\overline{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}+c$; then (\[eqn:relation on Yu\]) implies that $-\partial_\theta^{Y_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ is its contact lift corresponding to $c=0$. It is clear that any other choice of $c$ yields a different lift. In the following, we shall identify the pairs $(N'_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B'_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}) \cong (N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})$. The Fourier decomposition of $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider the holomorphic action $$\rho^{A^\vee_0}:(e^{\imath\,\theta},\,\ell)\in S^1\times A^\vee_0\rightarrow e^{-\imath\,\theta}\,\ell\in A^\vee_0.$$ Thus $\rho^{A^\vee_0}$ extends $\rho^X$. Similarly, let $\mu^{A^\vee_0}:T\times A^\vee_0\rightarrow A^\vee_0$ be the holomorphic action extending $\mu^X$. Clearly, $\rho^{A^\vee_0}$ and $\mu^{A^\vee_0}$ commute. The dense open subset $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\subseteq A^\vee_{0}$ is invariant under both $\rho^{A^\vee_0}$ and $\mu^{A^\vee_0}$, which therefore restrict to commuting holomorphic actions $\rho^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ and $\mu^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ on $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Therefore, $\rho^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ and $\mu^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ determine commuting representations $\hat{\rho}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ of $S^1$ and $\hat{\mu}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ of $T$ on the space $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ of holomorphic functions on $\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, given by $$%\label{eqn:Aveerhohat} \hat{\rho}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}_{e^{\imath\theta}}(s):= s\circ \rho^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}_{e^{-\imath\theta}},\quad \hat{\mu}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}_{\mathbf{t}}(s):= s\circ \mu^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}_{\mathbf{t}^{-1}}\qquad \big(s\in \mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}),\, e^{\imath\theta}\in S^1,\,\mathbf{t}\in T. \big).$$ For every $l\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\in \mathbb{Z}^r$, let $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_l$ and $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ be the $l$-th and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$-th isotypical components of $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})$, respectively, for $\hat{\rho}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ and $\hat{\mu}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$, respectively. Hence $\hat{\rho}^{\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$ restricts to a subrepresentation on $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$. In particular, for every $k=1,2,\ldots$ the vector space $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is finite dimensional by (\[eqn:restrictionCRolosections\]), and we have an $S^1\times T$-equivariant decomposition $$\label{eqn:equivariant S1T} \mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}= \bigoplus_{l\in \mathbb{Z}}\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu},\,l},$$ where $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu},\,l}= \mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}\cap \mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{l}$. Since the isomorphisms in (\[eqn:restrictionCRolosections\]) are by construction $S^1$-equivariant, (\[eqn:equivariant S1T\]) may be interpreted in terms of $H^0(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})$: $$\label{eqn:splitting H^0S1} H^0(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}) =\bigoplus_{l\in \mathbb{Z}}H^0(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})_l.$$ \[lem:kgg0vanishing\] If $k\gg 0$, $H^0(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})_l=0$ for all $l\le 0$. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:kgg0vanishing\]\] In the terminology of @ms, the datum of the Hamiltonian action $\rho^{N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$, with moment map $\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2/\overline{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}$, makes $B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ into a prequantum $S^1$-equivariant orbibundle, hence into a moment line bundle. By Corollary 2.11 of @ms, and given that $\|\boldsymbol{\nu}\|^2/\overline{\Phi^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}}>0$, we conclude that the Fourier decomposition of $\mathrm{RR}(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})$ (viewed as a virtual character of $S^1$) has the form $$\label{eqn:RRpositivecontr} \mathrm{RR}(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})= \sum_{l>0}\mathrm{RR}(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})_l\cdot\chi_l,$$ where where $\chi_l(e^{\imath\,\theta})=e^{\imath\,l\,\theta}$. In view of Corollary \[cor:vanishing kb\] this means that, as a representation of $S^1$, $$\label{eqn:splitting H^0poscontr} H^0(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}) =\bigoplus_{l>0}H^0(N_{\boldsymbol{\nu}},B_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}})_l\qquad \forall\,k\gg 0.$$ By the $S^1$-equivariance in (\[eqn:restrictionCRolosections\]), we can now sharpen (\[eqn:equivariant S1T\]) as follows. \[cor:positive-contribOA\] If $k\gg 0$, then $$\label{eqn:equivariant S1Tpos} \mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu}}= \bigoplus_{l>0}\mathcal{O}(\tilde{A}^\vee_{\boldsymbol{\nu}})_{k\,\boldsymbol{\nu},\,l}.$$ Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] ============================= We can now give the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. First, however, let us consider the following statement. \[lem:isoHknuOknu\] For every $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\in \mathbb{Z}$, restriction yields an isomorphism $\mathcal{O}(A^\vee_0)_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\cong H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$. \[Proof of Lemma \[lem:isoHknuOknu\]\] Clearly, restriction yields a morphism $\zeta_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}:\mathcal{O}(A^\vee_0)_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} \rightarrow H(X)^{\hat{\mu}}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$. If $f\in \mathcal{O}(A^\vee_0)$ is non-zero, then the locus where its differential vanishes has real codimension $\ge 2$; if
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2008'}