---
abstract: 'We prove that, for a closed orineted smooth spin 4-manifold $X$ with $\sigma(X)<0$ and $H^{1}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}/2)=0$, the Dehn twist about a $(-2)$-sphere in $X$ is not homotopic to any finite order diffeomorphism. In particular, we negatively answer the Nielsen realization problem for each group generated by the mapping class of a Dehn twist. We also show that there is a difference between the Nielsen realization problems in the topological category and smooth category for connected sums of copies of $K3$ and $S^{2} \times S^{2}$. The main ingredient of the proofs is Y. Kato's 10/8-type inequality for involutions.'
address: |
    Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, the University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan\
    and\
    RIKEN iTHEMS, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan
author:
- Hokuto Konno
bibliography:
- 'mainref.bib'
title: 'Dehn twists and the Nielsen realization problem for spin 4-manifolds'
---

Main results {#section: main results}
============

Given a smooth manifold $X$, let ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X)$ denote the group of diffeomorphisms. The <span>*Nielsen realization problem*</span> asks whether a given finite subgroup $G$ of the mapping class group $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$ can be realized as a subgroup of ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X)$, i.e. whether there exists a (group-theoretic) section $s : G \to {\mathrm{Diff}}(X)$ of the natural map ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$ over $G$. If there is a section, we say that $G$ is <span>*realizable in ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X)$*</span>. When $X$ is of $\dim=2$ and oriented closed, which is the classical case of the Nielsen realization problem, Kerckhoff @Ker83 proved that every $G$ is realizable.

In contrast, in dimension 4, it was recently revealed by Baraglia and the author @BK21 and Farb and Looijenga @FL21 that some finite subgroups of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$ are <span>*not*</span> realizable for $X=K3$, the underlying smooth 4-manifold of a $K3$ surface. However, to the best of the author's knowledge, $K3$ is the only example of 4-manifolds $X$ which are shown to admit non-realizable finite subgroups of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$. The purpose of this paper is to expand the list of such 4-manifolds considerably. To state our result, consider <span>*Dehn twists*</span>, following Farb and Looijenga @FL21. Recall that a $(-2)$-sphere $S$ embedded in a 4-manifold $X$ gives rise to a diffeomorphism $T_{S} : X \to X$ called the Dehn twist, whose mapping class $[T_{S}]$ is known to generate an order 2 subgroup of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$. Our main result is:

\[theo: main 1\] Let $X$ be a closed oriented smooth spin 4-manifold with $\sigma(X)<0$ and with $H^{1}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}/2)=0$. Then, for every $(-2)$-sphere $S$ in $X$, the Dehn twist $T_{S} : X \to X$ about $S$ is not homotopic to any finite order diffeomorphism of $X$, although $T_{S}^{2}$ is smoothly isotopic to the identity. In particuclar, the order 2 subgroup of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$ generated by $[T_{S}]$ is not realizable in ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X)$.

Here $\sigma(X)$ denotes the signature of $X$. \[theo: main 1\] generalizes the case when $X=K3$ due to Farb and Looijenga @FL21 [Corollary 1.10] (see \[rem: comparison with FL\] for the comparison). After Seidel's Ph.D. thesis, Dehn twists have been extensively studied in symplectic topology when $X$ is symplectic and $S$ is Lagrangian (see, e.g., @Sei08), but in this paper we do not consider symplectic structures on 4-manifolds.

\[theo: main 1\] makes a striking contrast to a very recent result by Lee @Lee22 [Corollary 1.5, Remark 1.7], which implies that the Dehn twist about every $(-2)$-sphere in ${\mathbb{CP}}^{2} \# n(-{\mathbb{CP}}^{2})$ with $n \leq 8$ is topologically isotopic (hence homotopic) to a smooth involution. This means that an analogous statement to \[theo: main 1\] does not hold for <span>*non-spin*</span> 4-manifolds.

\[theo: main 1\] tells us that quite many spin 4-manifolds $X$ have (many) non-realizable order 2 subgroups of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$. Indeed, there are many spin 4-manifolds that admit $(-2)$-spheres. For example: $S^{2} \times S^{2}$, $K3$, more generally, a spin complete intersection surface $M$. Note that $M$ is simply-connected and $\sigma(M)<0$ except for $M=S^{2} \times S^{2}$, and thus we may apply \[theo: main 1\] to $M$ which is not $S^{2} \times S^{2}$ and obtain a non-realizable subgroup, and, of course, we may apply \[theo: main 1\] also to the connected sum of $M$ with any simply-connected spin 4-manifold with $\sigma \leq 0$. (For the fact that $M$ contains a $(-2)$-sphere, see the proof of Theorem 1.5 in @Sei08 [page 255]. In fact, one may find a Lagrangian sphere in $M$, whose self-intersection is always $-2$. See also @GS99 [pages 23–24] for the topology of $M$, including when a complete intersection is spin.)

Another result of this paper is about a comparison between the Nielsen realization problems in the topological category and the smooth category. Let ${\mathrm{Homeo}}(X)$ denote the group of homeomorphisms of a manifold $X$. As well as the smooth Nielsen realization, we say that a subgroup $G$ of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Homeo}}(X))$ is <span>*realizable in ${\mathrm{Homeo}}(X)$*</span> if there is a section $s : G \to {\mathrm{Homeo}}(X)$ of the natural map ${\mathrm{Homeo}}(X) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Homeo}}(X))$ over $G$. In @BK21 [Theorem 1.2], Baraglia and the author showed that some order 2 subgroup of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(K3))$ is not realizable in ${\mathrm{Diff}}(K3)$, even when the corresponding subgroup in $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Homeo}}(K3))$ is realizable in ${\mathrm{Homeo}}(K3)$. We generalize this result to connected sums of copies of $K3$ and $S^{2} \times S^{2}$:

\[theo: top smooth Nielsen\] For $m>0$ and $n \geq 0$, set $X = mK3\#nS^{2} \times S^{2}$. Then there exists an order 2 subgroup $G$ of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$ with the following properties:

-   The group $G$ is not realizable in ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X)$. Moreover, the generator of $G$ is not homotopic to any finite order diffeomorphism of $X$.

-   The subgroup $G' \subset \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Homeo}}(X))$ defined as the image of $G$ under the natural map $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X)) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Homeo}}(X))$ is a non-trivial group, and $G'$ is realizable in ${\mathrm{Homeo}}(X)$.

In other words, a representative $g \in {\mathrm{Diff}}(X)$ of the generator of $G$ in \[theo: top smooth Nielsen\] is not homotopic to any finite order diffeomorphism, although $g^{2}$ is smoothly isotopic to the identity and $g$ is topologically isotopic to some topological involution with non-trivial mapping class. \[theo: top smooth Nielsen\] gives also an alternative proof of a result by Baraglia @B19 [Proposition 1.2] about the realization problem along ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}))$ (see \[section Additional remarks\]).

\[theo: main 1,theo: top smooth Nielsen\] shall be derived from the following constraint on the induced actions of finite order diffeomorphisms on homology:

\[theo: constraint from Kato\] Let $X$ be a closed oriented smooth spin 4-manifold with $\sigma(X)<0$ and $H^{1}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}/2)=0$. Let $\varphi : H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})/\mathrm{Tor} \to H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})/\mathrm{Tor}$ be an automorphism of the intersection form of order 2. If $\varphi$ satisfies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: necessary condition}
\sigma^{\varphi}(X) \neq \frac{\sigma(X)}{2} 
\quad{\text and}\quad
-\frac{\sigma(X)}{16} > b_{+}(X)-b_{+}^{\varphi}(X),\end{aligned}$$ then there does not exist a finite order diffeomorphism $g : X \to X$ such that $g_{\ast}=\varphi$.

Here $b_{+}(X)$ denotes the maximal-dimension of positive-definite subspaces of $H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{R}})$, and for an involution $\varphi$ on the intersection lattice, we denote by $b_{+}^{\varphi}(X)$ (resp. $b_{-}^{\varphi}(X)$) the maximal-dimension of positive-definite (resp. negative-definite) subspaces of the $\varphi$-invariant part $H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{R}})^{\varphi}$, and we set $\sigma^{\varphi}(X) = b_{+}^{\varphi}(X) - b_{-}^{\varphi}(X)$. A main ingredient of the proof of \[theo: constraint from Kato\] is Y. Kato's 10/8-type inequality for involutions @Ka17 (\[theo: Kato 108\]), which was derived from Seiberg–Witten theory.

Proof of \[theo: constraint from Kato\]
=======================================

Henceforth, for an oriented closed 4-manifold $X$, we identify $H_{2}(X)$ with $H^{2}(X)$ via the Poincaré duality. For an involution $\iota$ on $X$, we set $b_{+}^{\iota}(X) = b_{+}^{\iota_{\ast}}(X)$, and similarly define $b_{-}^{\iota}(X)$ and $\sigma^{\iota}(X)$. Note that, if $X$ has non-vanishing signature, all diffeomorphisms of $X$ are orientation-preserving, namely, we have ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X) = {\mathrm{Diff}}^{+}(X)$, the group of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms.

First, we recall the notion of even and odd involutions following @AB68 [@Bry98]. Let $X$ be an oriented closed smooth 4-manifold and ${\mathfrak{s}}$ be a spin structure on $X$. Let $\iota : X \to X$ be an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism of order 2, and suppose that $\iota$ preserves (the isomorphism class of) ${\mathfrak{s}}$. Then there are exactly two lifts of $\iota$ to ${\mathfrak{s}}$ as automorphisms of the spin structure. We have either both lifts are of order 2 or both are of order 4. We say that the involution $\iota$ is <span>*of even type*</span> if the lifts are of order 2, and say that $\iota$ is <span>*of odd type*</span> if the lifts are of order 4. When the fixed-point set $X^{\iota}$ is non-empty, the codimension of all components of $X^{\iota}$ are the same, which is either 4 or 2, and the parity of $\iota$ determines which of them arises: $X^{\iota}$ is of codimention-4 if $\iota$ is of even type, and $X^{\iota}$ is of codimention-2 if $\iota$ is of odd type (@AB68 [Proposition 8.46], see also @Rub95).

\[lem: even involution Gsignature\] Let $X$ be an oriented closed smooth 4-manifold and ${\mathfrak{s}}$ be a spin structure on $X$. Let $\iota : X \to X$ be an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism of order 2, and suppose that $\iota$ preserves (the isomorphism class of) ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and is of even type. Then we have $\sigma^{\iota}(X) = \sigma(X)/2$.

By Hirzebruch's signature theorem (for example, @HZ74), $\sigma^{\iota}(X)$ can be obtained by adding $\sigma(X)/2$ to contributions from isolated fixed points and fixed surfaces of $\iota$. Note that $X^{\iota}$ does not contain surfaces since $\iota$ is even, and hence possibly non-zero contributions are only from isolated fixed points. The contribution from each isolated fixed point $x$ is given by $(1+\chi_{x}^{1})(1+\chi_{x}^{2})/(1-\chi_{x}^{1})(1-\chi_{x}^{2})$, where $\chi_{x}^{i} \in {\mathbb{C}}$ are determined by the infinitesimal action of $\iota$ at $x$, namely, $d\iota_{x}$ is given by $(z_{1}, z_{2}) \mapsto (\chi_{x}^{1}z_{1}, \chi_{x}^{2}z_{2})$ under an identification $T_{x}X \cong {\mathbb{C}}\oplus {\mathbb{C}}$. Since $x$ is isolated in $X^{\iota}$, we have $\chi_{x}^{i}=-1$ for both $i=1,2$. Thus the contribution from isolated fixed points is also zero.

A key input to this paper is the following 10/8-type constraint on odd smooth involutions, proved by Y. Kato @Ka17 using Seiberg–Witten theory:

\[<span>@Ka17 [Theorem 2.3]</span>\] \[theo: Kato 108\] Let $(X, {\mathfrak{s}})$ be a smooth closed oriented spin 4-manifold. Let $\iota : X \to X$ be a smooth orientation-preserving involution, and suppose that $\iota$ preserves ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and is of odd type. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Kato's inequality}
-\frac{\sigma(X)}{16} \leq b_{+}(X)-b_{+}^{\iota}(X).\end{aligned}$$

In the notation of @Ka17, \[theo: Kato 108\] is stated using a quantity $b_{+}^{I}(X)$, where $I$ acts on $H^{2}(X;{\mathbb{R}})$ as $I=-\iota^{*}$. Noting the Poincaré duality, it immediately follows that $b_{+}^{I}(X) = b_{+}(X)-b_{+}^{\iota}(X)$.

\[Proof of \[theo: constraint from Kato\]\] Suppose that there exists a diffeomorphism $g : X \to X$ of finite order such that $g_{\ast}=\varphi$, and let us get a contradiction.

First, reduce the problem to involutions following @FL21 [Proof of Corollary 1.10]. Since the subgroup of ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X)$ generated by $g$ has a surjective homomorphism onto $\left<\varphi\right> \cong {\mathbb{Z}}/2$, we have that the order of $g$ is even. Let $2m$ be the order of $g$, then $g^{m}$ is a smooth involution. Set $\iota = g^{m}$. Since $g_{\ast} = \varphi$ is of order 2, we have that either $\iota_{\ast} = \varphi$ or $\iota_{\ast} = {\mathrm{id}}$. Note that a spin structure on $X$ is unique by the assumption that $H^{1}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}/2)=0$, and hence $\iota$ preserves it.

If $\iota_{\ast} = \varphi$, we have $\sigma^{\iota}(X) \neq \sigma(X)/2$ from the assumption that $\sigma^{\varphi}(X) \neq \sigma(X)/2$. If $\iota_{\ast} = {\mathrm{id}}$, we have $\sigma^{\iota}(X) \neq \sigma(X)/2$ since we supposed $\sigma(X) \neq 0$. Thus, in any of these cases, we have $\sigma^{\iota}(X) \neq \sigma(X)/2$ and hence it follows from \[lem: even involution Gsignature\] that $\iota$ is of odd type. However, we have inequalities $$-\frac{\sigma(X)}{16} > b_{+}(X)-b_{+}^{\varphi}(X) \geq b_{+}(X)-b_{+}^{\iota}(X),$$ which contradicts \[theo: Kato 108\]. This completes the proof.

Proof of \[theo: main 1\]
=========================

First, we recall 4-dimensional Dehn twists. We refer readers to a lecture note by Seidel @Sei08 [Section 2] for details. While the construction of the Dehn twist in @Sei08 is described for a Lagrangian sphere in a symplectic 4-manifold, the construction works for any $(-2)$-sphere in a general 4-manifold without any change. Given a $(-2)$-sphere $S$ in an oriented 4-manifold $X$, namely a smoothly embedded 2-dimensional sphere $S$ with $[S]^{2}=-2$, one may construct a diffeomorphism $T_{S} : X \to X$ called the <span>*Dehn twist*</span> about $S$, which is supported in a tubular neighborhood of $S$ in $X$, as follows. First, note that a tubular neighborhood of $S$ is diffeomorphic to $T^{\ast}S^{2}$ since $S$ is a $(-2)$-sphere, and fix an embedding $T^{\ast}S^{2} {\hookrightarrow}X$. The Dehn twist $T_{S}$ is the extension by the identity of some compactly supported diffeomorphism $\tau$ of $T^{\ast}S^{2}$, where $\tau$ acts on the zero-section $S^{2}$ as the antipodal map and $\tau$ is smoothly isotopic to the identity through compactly supported diffeomorphisms of $T^{\ast}S^{2}$ @Sei08 [Proposition 2.1]. Hence the induced action of $T_{S}$ on homology is non-trivial, more precisely, $(T_S)_\ast : H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}) \to H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ is given as $(T_S)_\ast(x) = x + (x \cdot [S])[S]$, and $T_{S}^{2}$ is smoothly isotopic to the identity. Thus the mapping class $[T_{S}]$ is non-trivial and it generates an order 2 subgroup of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$.

\[Proof of \[theo: main 1\]\] Let $S$ be a $(-2)$-sphere in $X$ and let $\varphi$ denote the induced automorphism of $H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ from the Dehn twist $T_{S}$. Let us calculate $b_{+}^{\varphi}$, $b_{-}^{\varphi}$, and $\sigma^{\varphi}$. As descibed above, $\varphi$ is given by $\varphi(x) = x + (x \cdot [S])[S]$, namely, $\varphi$ acts on $H_{2}(X)$ as a reflection with respect to the orthogonal complement of the subspace generated by $[S]$. Here the orthogonal complement is with respect to the intersection form, and hence the complement contains a maximal-dimensional positive-definite subspace. Thus we have $$b_{+}^{\varphi}(X) = b_{+}(X), \quad b_{-}^{\varphi}(X) = b_{-}(X)-1, \quad \sigma^{\varphi}(X) = \sigma(X)+1.$$ From this we have that $\sigma^{\varphi}(X) \neq \sigma(X)/2$, since we supposed that $\sigma(X) < 0$ and hence $|\sigma(X)| \geq 8$ since $H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ is an even lattice. Moreover, we also have $-\sigma(X)/16 > b_{+}(X)-b_{+}^{\varphi}(X)$ again by $\sigma(X)<0$. Now the claim of \[theo: main 1\] follows from \[theo: constraint from Kato\].

\[rem: comparison with FL\] For $X=K3$, the above proof of \[theo: main 1\] gives an alternative proof of @FL21 [Corollary 1.10] by Farb and Looijenga. They gave two different proofs of @FL21 [Corollary 1.10], and one of them is based on Seiberg–Witten theory. We also used Seiberg–Witten theory, but in a slightly different manner: our proof uses Kato's result @Ka17, rather than a result due to Bryan @Bry98 used by Farb and Looijenga.

Kato's inequality is useful to obtain a result for general spin 4-manifolds as in \[theo: main 1\] not only $K3$. This is essentially because $b_{+}$ is replaced with $b_{+}-b_{+}^{\iota}$ in Kato's inequality .

Proof of \[theo: top smooth Nielsen\]
=====================================

Given an oriented closed simply-connected smooth 4-manifold $X$, let ${\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}))$ denote the automorphism group of $H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ equipped with the intersection form. Since the space of maximal-dimensional positive-definite subspaces of $H^{2}(X;{\mathbb{R}})$ is known to be contractible, it makes sense whether a given $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}))$ preserves a given orientation of the positive part of $H^{2}(X;{\mathbb{R}})$. Let us recall the following classical fact:

\[@Do90 [@Matu86; @Bor86]\] \[theo: K3 image\] Let $\Gamma(K3) \subset {\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(K3;{\mathbb{Z}}))$ denote the image of the natural map $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(K3)) \to {\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(K3;{\mathbb{Z}}))$. Then $\Gamma(K3)$ is the index 2 subgroup of ${\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(K3;{\mathbb{Z}}))$ which consists of automorphisms that preserve a given orientation of $H^{+}(K3)$.

We shall also use:

\[<span>@BK21 [Theorem 1.1]</span>\] \[theo: K3 section\] There exists a (group-theoretic) section $s : \Gamma(K3) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(K3))$ of the natural map $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(K3)) \to {\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(K3;{\mathbb{Z}}))$.

\[Proof of \[theo: top smooth Nielsen\]\] First, we recall a construction of a topological involution $f_{K}$ on $K3$ (i.e. order 2 element of ${\mathrm{Homeo}}(K3)$) in @BK21 [Section 3]. Let $-E_{8}$ denote the negative-definite $E_{8}$-manifold, namely, simply-connected closed oriented topological 4-manifold whose intersection form is the negative-definite $E_{8}$-lattice. Let $f_{S} : S^{2} \times S^{2} \to S^{2} \times S^{2}$ be the diffeomorphism defined by $(x,y) \mapsto (y,x)$. Since $f_{S}$ has non-empty fixed-point set, which is of codimension-2, we can form an equivariant connected sum of three copies of $(S^{2} \times S^{2}, f_{S})$. Take a point $x_{0}$ of $3S^{2} \times S^{2}$ outside the fixed-pioint set of $\#_{3}f_{S}$, and attach two copies of $-E_{8}$ with $3S^{2} \times S^{2}$ at $x_{0}$ and $(\#_{3}f_{S})(x_{0})$. Now we have got a topological involution $\tilde{f} : 3S^{2} \times S^{2}\#2(-E_{8}) \to 3S^{2} \times S^{2}\#2(-E_{8})$. Let $h : K3 \to 3S^{2} \times S^{2}\#2(-E_{8})$ be a homeomorphism obtained from Freedman theory @Fre82, and define $f_{K} : K3 \to K3$ by $f_{K} = h^{-1} \circ \tilde{f} \circ h$, which is a topological involution on $K3$.

Define a topological involution $f : X \to X$ by an equivariant connected sum $f = \#_{m} f_{K} \#_{n}f_{S}$ on $X = mK3 \# nS^{2}\times S^{2}$ along fixed points, which acts on homology as follows. Recall that $H^{+}(S^{2} \times S^{2})$ is generated by $[S^{2} \times \mathrm{pt}] + [\mathrm{pt} \times S^{2}]$ and $H^{-}(S^{2} \times S^{2})$ is generated by $[S^{2} \times \mathrm{pt}] - [\mathrm{pt} \times S^{2}]$. Hence $f_{0}$ acts trivially on $H^{+}(S^{2} \times S^{2})$, and acts on $H^{-}(S^{2} \times S^{2})$ by $(-1)$-multiplication, and thus we have $b_{+}^{f_{S}}(S^{2} \times S^{2}) = 1$, $b_{-}^{f_{S}}(S^{2} \times S^{2}) = 0$, and hence $$\begin{aligned}
&b_{+}^{f_{K}}(K3) = 3,\quad b_{-}^{f_{K}}(K3) = 8,\quad \sigma^{f_{K}}(K3)=-5, 
\label{eq: invariant part of numerical invariants1}\\
&b_{+}^{f}(X) = 3m+n,\quad b_{-}^{f}(X) = 8m,\quad \sigma^{f}(X)=-5m+n.
\label{eq: invariant part of numerical invariants2}\end{aligned}$$

It follows from that $(f_{K})_{\ast}$ preserves an orientation of $H^{+}(K3)$, and hence $(f_{K})_{\ast}$ lies in $\Gamma(K3)$ by \[theo: K3 image\]. Using the section $s : \Gamma(K3) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(K3))$ given in \[theo: K3 section\], set $\Phi = s((f_{K})_{\ast})$. Then $\Phi$ is a non-trivial element of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(K3))$ of order 2, and hence a representative $g_{K} : K3 \to K3$ of $\Phi$ is a diffeomorphism whose square $g_{K}^{2}$ is smoothly isotopic to the identity. By smooth isotopy, we may take $g_{K}$ so that $g_{K}$ pointwise fixes a 4-disk in $K3$. Similarly, we may obtain a diffeomorphism $g_{S}$ of $S^{2} \times S^{2}$ which is smoothly isotopic to $f_{S}$ and which fixes a 4-disk pointwise. Fixing disjoint disks $D_{1}^{4}, \ldots, D_{m+n}^{4}$ in $S^{4}$, form a diffeomorphism $$g = \#_{m} g_{K} \#_{n}g_{S} : X \to X$$ by attaching $g_{K}$'s and $g_{S}$'s with $(S^{4}, {\mathrm{id}}_{S^{4}})$ along the fixed disks of $g_{K}$'s and $g_{S}$'s and $D_{1}^{4}, \ldots, D_{m+n}^{4}$. It is clear that $g$ is supported outside $S^{4}_{0} := S^{4} \setminus \sqcup_{i=1}^{m+n}D_{i}^{4}$.

We claim that $g^{2}$ is smoothly isotopic to the identity. First, for a simply-connected closed oriented 4-manifold $M$, let ${\mathrm{Diff}}(M, D^{4})$ denote the group of diffeomorphisms fixing pointwise an embedded 4-disk $D^{4}$ in $M$. It follows from @Gian08 [Proposition 3.1] that we have an exact sequence $$1 \to \ker{p} \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(M, D^{4})) \xrightarrow{p} \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(M)) \to 1,$$ where $p$ is an obvious homomorphism and $\ker{p}$ is isomorphic to either ${\mathbb{Z}}/2$ or $0$, which is generated by the mapping class of the Dehn twist $\tau_{M}$ along the 3-sphere parallel to the boundary. Set $\tau_{K} = \tau_{K3}$ and $\tau_{S} = \tau_{S^{2} \times S^{2}}$. Note that the relative mapping class $[\tau_{K}]_{{\partial}}$ is non-trivial in $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(K3, D^{4}))$ by @KM20 [Proposition 1.2], while $[\tau_{S}]_{{\partial}}$ is trivial since $\tau_{S}$ can be absorbed into the $S^{1}$-action on $S^{2} \times S^{2}$ given by the rotation of one $S^{2}$-component. Thus we obtain from $[g_{K}]^{2}=1$ and $[g_{S}]^{2}=1$ that $[g_{K}]_{{\partial}}^{2} = [\tau_{K}]_{{\partial}}\neq1$ and $[g_{S}]_{{\partial}}^{2}=1$. Hence $[g]^{2}$ is the product of the Dehn twists along necks between $m$-copies of $K3$ and $S^{4}_{0}$.

On the other hand, let $\tau_{S^{4}_{0}} : S^{4}_{0} \to S^{4}_{0}$ be the diffeomorphism defined as the simultaneous Dehn twists near all ${\partial}D_{i}^{4}$. It follows from \[lem: S4 rotation\] below that $\tau_{S^{4}_{0}}$ is smoothly isotopic to the identity relative to ${\partial}S^{4}_{0}$. Thus we have $[g]^{2} = [(\tau_{S^{4}_{0}} \# {\mathrm{id}}_{X \setminus S^{4}_{0}})\circ g^{2}]$. Note that $\tau_{S^{4}_{0}}$ restricted to the neck between each $K3$ and $S^{4}_{0}$ cancels the Dehn twist $\tau_{K}$, but $\tau_{S^{4}_{0}}$ yields the Dehn twist on each of the necks between $S^{2} \times S^{2}$'s and $S^{4}_{0}$. As a result, $[g]^{2}$ is the product of the Dehn twits along the necks between all of $S^{2} \times S^{2}$ and $S^{4}_{0}$. But each of these Dehn twists can be absorbed into the rotation of $S^{2} \times S^{2}$ as above. Thus we get $[g]^{2}=1$.

Let $G$ be the subgroup of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$ generated by the mapping class $[g]$. We claim that this group $G$ is the desired one. First, by construction, we have $g_{\ast} = f_{\ast}$ on $H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$. By a theorem of Quinn @Q86 and Perron @P86, this implies that $g$ and $f$ are topologically isotopic to each other. Thus the image $G'$ of $G$ under the map $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X)) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Homeo}}(X))$ lifts to the order 2 subgroup of ${\mathrm{Homeo}}(X)$ generated by $f$. Since $G'$ is a non-trivial group as $g$ acts homology non-trivially, this proves the statement on $G'$ in the .

What remains to prove is that $g$ is not homotopic to any finite order diffeomorphism of $X$. However, using $g_{\ast}=f_{\ast}$, , and $m>0$, it is straightforward to see that $\varphi=g_{\ast}$ satisfies . Thus the desired assertion follows from \[theo: constraint from Kato\]. This completes the proof of the .

The following and how to use it in the proof of \[theo: top smooth Nielsen\] were suggested to the author by David Baraglia:

\[lem: S4 rotation\] Let $N >0$ and let $S^{4}_{0}$ be a $N$-punctured 4-sphere, $S^{4}_{0} = S^{4} \setminus \sqcup_{i=1}^{N}D_{i}^{4}$. Let $\tau_{S^{4}_{0}} : S^{4}_{0} \to S^{4}_{0}$ be the diffeomorphism defined as the simultaneous Dehn twists near all ${\partial}D_{i}^{4}$. Then $\tau_{S^{4}_{0}}$ is smoothly isotopic to the identity relative to ${\partial}S^{4}_{0}$.

Regard $S^{4}$ as the unit sphere of ${\mathbb{R}}^{5}={\mathbb{R}}^{2} \oplus {\mathbb{R}}^{3}$, and let $S^{1}$ act on $S^{4}$ by the standard rotation of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$-component. The fixed-point set $\Sigma$ of the $S^{1}$-action is given by $S(0 \oplus {\mathbb{R}}^{3}) \cong S^{2}$. We may assume that $D_{i}^{4}$ are embedded disks in $S^{4}$ whose centers $p_{i}$ are on $\Sigma$. Then the normal tangent space $N_{p_{i}}$ of $\Sigma$ at $p_{i}$ in $S^{4}$ is acted by $S^{1}$ as the standard rotation. Thus the $S^{1}$-action on $S^{4}$ cancels the simultaneous Dehn twists.

For $X=K3$, the above proof of \[theo: top smooth Nielsen\] gives a slight alternative proof of @BK21 [Theorem 1.2], which used the adjunction inequality rather than Kato's result @Ka17.

Additional remarks {#section Additional remarks}
==================

Given a manifold $X$ of any dimension, one may also consider the realization problem for <span>*infinite*</span> subgroups of $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$ along ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}(X))$ (or along ${\mathrm{Diff}}^{+}(X) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Diff}}^{+}(X))$ when ${\mathrm{Diff}}(X) \neq {\mathrm{Diff}}^{+}(X)$). To answer this problem negatively, several authors developed cohomological obstructions, which can be thought of as descendants of an argument started by Morita @Mo87 for surfaces. In dimension 4, concrete results on the non-realization were obtained in @Tshi15 [@GKT21] in this direction (see also @Gian09). Concretely, Giansiracusa–Kupers–Tshishiku @GKT21 studied $X=K3$, and Tshishiku @Tshi15 considered manifolds of any dimension, but especially a result in @Tshi15 [Theorem 9.1] treated 4-manifolds whose fundamental groups are isomorphic to non-trivial lattices, which does not have overlap with 4-manifolds that we considered in this paper.

Another variant of the realization problem is about the realization along the natural map ${\mathrm{Diff}}^{+}(X) \to \pi_{0}({\mathrm{Homeo}}^{+}(X))$ for a subgroup of the image of this map. If $X$ is a simply-connected 4-manifold, the natural map $\pi_{0}({\mathrm{Homeo}}^{+}(X)) \to {\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}))$ is isomorphic @Q86 [@P86], and hence this version of realization problem is equivalent to the realization along the map ${\mathrm{Diff}}^{+}(X) \to {\mathrm{Aut}}(H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}))$, which has been extensively studied by Nakamura @Naka10, Baraglia @B19 [@Ba21], and Lee @Lee21 [@Lee22]. As noted in \[section: main results\], \[theo: top smooth Nielsen\] gives an alternative proof of @B19 [Proposition 1.2] about the realization of an involution of $H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$.

The author thanks Jin Miyazawa and Masaki Taniguchi for stimulating discussions about Kato's work @Ka17, which helped him to get a feeling about @Ka17. The author wishes to thank David Baraglia for pointing out a mistake in the proof of \[theo: top smooth Nielsen\] in an earlier draft and suggesting a remedy for it based on \[lem: S4 rotation\]. The author also wishes to thank Seraphina Eun Bi Lee for explaining her work @Lee21 [@Lee22]. The author was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 17H06461, 19K23412, and 21K13785.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/2203'}