Proposition 5
The bivector
${\sigma}_{+}$
is a holomorphic Poisson structure.

Proof: We shall first show that
${\sigma}_{+}$
is holomorphic, and then that its Schouten bracket vanishes.
Let
${z}_{1},...,{z}_{n}$
be local holomorphic coordinates, then
$${\sigma}_{+}=\sum ({I}_{}d{z}_{i},d{z}_{j})\frac{\partial}{\partial {z}_{i}}\wedge \frac{\partial}{\partial {z}_{j}}$$
where we use the inner product on
$1$
forms defined by the metric and the complex structure
${I}_{}$
on
$1$
forms. We need to show that the functions
$({I}_{}d{z}_{i},d{z}_{j})$
are holomorphic.
Now
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial {\overline{z}}_{k}}({I}_{}d{z}_{i},d{z}_{j})=\left(\right({\nabla}_{\overline{k}}^{+}{I}_{})d{z}_{i},d{z}_{j})+({I}_{}{\nabla}_{\overline{k}}^{+}d{z}_{i},d{z}_{j})+({I}_{}d{z}_{i},{\nabla}_{\overline{k}}^{+}d{z}_{j}).\end{array}$$ 
(23)

The LeviCivita connection
$\nabla $
has zero torsion so
$$0=d\left(d{z}_{i}\right)=\sum d{z}_{k}\wedge {\nabla}_{k}d{z}_{i}+\sum d{\overline{z}}_{k}\wedge {\nabla}_{\overline{k}}d{z}_{i}.$$
But from ( 18 )
${\nabla}^{+}=\nabla +H/2$
where
$H={g}^{1}db$
, so
$$\begin{array}{c}0={\sum}_{k}d{z}_{k}\wedge ({\nabla}_{k}^{+}{H}_{k}/2)d{z}_{i}+{\sum}_{k}d{\overline{z}}_{k}\wedge ({\nabla}_{\overline{k}}^{+}{H}_{\overline{k}}/2)d{z}_{i}.\end{array}$$ 
(24)

Now
${\nabla}^{+}$
preserves
${I}_{+}$
so that
${\nabla}_{k}^{+}d{z}_{i}$
and
${\nabla}_{\overline{k}}^{+}d{z}_{i}$
are
$(1,0)$
forms. However, since
$H$
is of type
$(2,1)+(1,2)$
,
${H}_{k}\left(d{z}_{i}\right)$
has a
$(0,1)$
component. Equating the
$(1,1)$
component of ( 24 ) to zero, the two contributions of
$H$
give
$$\begin{array}{c}{\nabla}_{\overline{k}}^{+}d{z}_{i}={H}_{\overline{k}}\left(d{z}_{i}\right)\end{array}$$ 
(25)

Now
${I}_{}$
is preserved by
${\nabla}^{}$
and from ( 18 )
${\nabla}^{}={\nabla}^{+}H$
, so
$${\nabla}_{\overline{k}}^{+}{I}_{}=[{H}_{\overline{k}},{I}_{}].$$
Using this and ( 25 ) in ( 23 ) we obtain
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial {\overline{z}}_{k}}({I}_{}d{z}_{i},d{z}_{j})=\left(\right[{H}_{\overline{k}},{I}_{}]d{z}_{i},d{z}_{j})+\left({I}_{}{H}_{\overline{k}}\right(d{z}_{i}),d{z}_{j})+({I}_{}d{z}_{i},{H}_{\overline{k}}(d{z}_{j}\left)\right)=0$$
and so
${\sigma}_{+}$
is holomorphic.
To prove that
${\sigma}_{+}$
is Poisson we use ( 19 ) and the observation that the upper triangular part of
${J}_{1}$
is a real Poisson structure. This means that
$$[{\omega}_{+}^{1}+{\omega}_{}^{1},{\omega}_{+}^{1}+{\omega}_{}^{1}]=0.$$
Now since
${\omega}_{+}$
is of type
$(1,1)$
,
${\omega}_{+}^{1}+{\omega}_{}^{1}=h+{\sigma}_{+}+{\overline{\sigma}}_{+}$
where
$h$
is a bivector of type
$(1,1)$
. Because
${\sigma}_{+}$
is holomorphic,
$[h,{\sigma}_{+}]$
has no
$(3,0)$
component and so the
$(3,0)$
component of
$0=[h+{\sigma}_{+}+{\overline{\sigma}}_{+},h+{\sigma}_{+}+{\overline{\sigma}}_{+}]$
is just
$[{\sigma}_{+},{\sigma}_{+}]$
. Hence
$[{\sigma}_{+},{\sigma}_{+}]=0$
and we have a holomorphic Poisson structure.
$\square $
When the generalized Kähler structure is defined by
${\rho}_{1}=exp{\beta}_{1},{\rho}_{2}=exp{\beta}_{2}$
, as in Lemma 1,
${\sigma}_{+}$
has a direct interpretation. Recall that
${\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}=\gamma $
is a nondegenerate holomorphic
$2$
form with respect to
${I}_{+}$
. Then
Proposition 6
Let
${\sigma}_{+}:({T}^{1,0}{)}^{*}\to {T}^{1,0}$
be the holomorphic Poisson structure corresponding to the generalized Kähler structure given by
$2$
forms
${\beta}_{1},{\beta}_{2}$
, and let
$\gamma ={\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}:{T}^{1,0}\to ({T}^{1,0}{)}^{*}$
be the holomorphic
$2$
form. Then
$${\sigma}_{+}=2i{\gamma}^{1}.$$

Proof: From ( 19 )
${\sigma}_{+}$
is given by the uppertriangular part of
${J}_{1}$
evaluated on oneforms of type
$(1,0)$
with respect to
${I}_{+}$
. Since
$\gamma $
is a nondegenerate
$(2,0)$
form, any
$(1,0)$
form can be written
${i}_{X}\gamma $
for a
$(1,0)$
vector
$X$
. So we require to prove that if
$X$
is a
$(1,0)$
vector, then the
$(1,0)$
component of
${J}_{1}\left({i}_{X}\gamma \right)$
is
$2iX$
. Now
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{J}_{1}\left({i}_{X}\gamma \right)& =& {J}_{1}\left({i}_{X}\right({\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}\left)\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {J}_{1}({i}_{X}{\overline{\beta}}_{1}X+X{i}_{X}{\overline{\beta}}_{2})\end{array}$$  
and by the definition of
${J}_{1}$
,
$$\begin{array}{c}{J}_{1}({i}_{X}{\overline{\beta}}_{1}X)=i({i}_{X}{\overline{\beta}}_{1}X)\end{array}$$ 
(26)

The term
$X{i}_{X}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}$
is acted on as
$i$
by
${J}_{2}$
and we split it into components for the two
${J}_{1}$
eigenspaces:
$$X{i}_{X}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}=Y{i}_{Y}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}+Z{i}_{Z}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}.$$
Since
$Z{i}_{Z}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}$
is in the
$i$
eigenspace of both
${J}_{1}$
and
${J}_{2}$
,
$Z$
is of type
$(0,1)$
. Since
$X=Y+Z$
,
$X={Y}^{1,0}$
. Now
$${J}_{1}(X{i}_{X}{\overline{\beta}}_{2})=i(Y{i}_{Y}{\overline{\beta}}_{2})i(Z{i}_{Z}{\overline{\beta}}_{2})$$
and adding this to ( 26 ), the upper triangular part of
${J}_{1}$
is given by
$${J}_{1}\left({i}_{X}\right({\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}\left)\right)=2iX2iZ$$
whose
$(1,0)$
part is
$2iX$
.
$\square $

Example: The examples of
$\mathbf{C}{P}^{2}$
and
${\mathbf{F}}_{2}$
were constructed by using
$2$
forms
${\beta}_{1},{\beta}_{2}$
.
Since
${\beta}_{1}$
had a pole on the curve at
$r=\infty $
and
${\beta}_{2}$
was smooth everywhere, the Poisson structures
${\sigma}_{+}=2i({\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}{)}^{1}$
and
${\sigma}_{}=2i({\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\beta}_{2}{)}^{1}$
vanish there.
4 Moduli spaces of instantons
4.1 Stability
On a
$4$
manifold with a Hermitian structure, the antiselfdual (ASD)
$2$
forms are the
$(1,1)$
forms orthogonal to the Hermitian form. Thus on a generalized Kähler
$4$
manifold, a connection with antiselfdual curvature (an instanton) has curvature of type
$(1,1)$
with respect to both complex structures
${I}_{+},{I}_{}$
. In fact, where
${I}_{+}\ne \pm {I}_{}$
, antiselfduality is equivalent to this condition.
The equations
${d}_{}^{c}{\omega}_{}=db={d}_{+}^{c}{\omega}_{+}$
imply that
$$d{d}_{\pm}^{c}{\omega}_{\pm}=0$$
which means that the metric is a Gauduchon metric with respect to both complex structures. With a Gauduchon metric one defines the degree of a holomorphic line bundle
$L$
by
$$degL=\frac{1}{2\pi}{\int}_{M}F\wedge \omega $$
where
$F$
is the curvature form of a connection on
$L$
defined by a Hermitian metric.
Since a different choice of metric changes
$F$
by
$d{d}^{c}f$
, the condition
$d{d}^{c}\omega =0$
and integration by parts shows that the degree, a real number, is independent of the choice of Hermitian metric on
$L$
. It has the usual property of degree that if a holomorphic section of
$L$
vanishes on a divisor
$D$
then
$$degL={\int}_{D}\omega .$$
So line bundles with sections which vanish somewhere have positive degree.

Remark: Let us consider this nonKähler degree for a bihermitian surface such that the Poisson structure vanishes on a divisor, like our examples of
$\mathbf{C}{P}^{2}$
and
$\mathbf{C}{P}^{1}\times \mathbf{C}{P}^{1}$
, and assume for convenience that the surface also carries a Kähler metric. The canonical bundle
$K$
has no holomorphic sections since the product with the Poisson structure, a section of
${K}^{*}$
, would give a holomorphic function with zeroes. This means
${H}^{2,0}\left(M\right)=0$
and so
${H}^{2}\left(M\right)$
is purely of type
$(1,1)$
. Now suppose that one of the generalized complex structures is defined by
$exp\beta $
where
$\beta $
is closed. We saw in ( 4 ) that
$\beta =b+i{\omega}_{+}+{\gamma}_{1}$
where
${\gamma}_{1}$
is of type
$(0,2)$
, so that the
$(1,1)$
component of
$\beta \overline{\beta}$
is
$2i{\omega}_{+}$
. Thus the integral of
${\omega}_{+}$
over a holomorphic curve
$C$
, which is positive, is the same as the integral of the closed form
$(\beta \overline{\beta})/2i$
.
Let
$W$
be the cohomology class of this form. Then we see that for every effective divisor
$D$
on
$M$
,
$WD>0$
. Furthermore,
$W$
is represented by the form
$$(\beta \overline{\beta})/2i={\omega}_{+}i({\gamma}_{1}{\overline{\gamma}}_{1})/2$$
which is selfdual, hence
${W}^{2}>0$
. It follows from Nakai's criterion that
$W$
is the cohomology class of a Kähler metric.
Since the ample cone generates the whole of the cohomology, we see that the nonKähler degree in this case agrees with the ordinary Kähler degree of some Kähler metric.
Observe also that
$\beta \overline{\beta}$
is also equal to
$2i{\omega}_{}+{\delta}_{1}{\overline{\delta}}_{1}$
so that we obtain the same degree function on cohomology for
${I}_{+}$
and
${I}_{}$
.
Using this definition of degree, one can define the slope of a subbundle, and from that the stability of a holomorphic bundle. The key theorem in the area, proved by Buchdahl [
5]
for surfaces and Li and Yau [
11]
in the general case, is that a bundle is stable if and only if it has an irreducible ASD connection. A good reference for this is the book [
12]
.
From this we already see that the moduli space
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
of ASD connections on a generalized Kähler manifold has two complex structures, by virtue of being the moduli space of stable bundles for both
${I}_{+}$
and
${I}_{}$
.
We shall prove the following theorem:
Theorem 7
Let
${M}^{4}$
be a compact even generalized Kähler manifold. Then the smooth points of the moduli space of ASD connections on a principal
$SU\left(k\right)$
bundle over
$M$
carries a natural bihermitian metric such that
${d}_{}^{c}{\omega}_{}=H={d}_{+}^{c}{\omega}_{+}$
for some exact
$3$
form
$H$
of type
$(2,1)+(1,2)$
.
From Gualtieri's theorem this has a generalized Kähler interpretation once we choose a
$2$
form
$b$
such that
$db=H$
.

Remark: In general, the moduli space of stable bundles may have singularities if the obstruction space
${H}^{2}(M,En{d}_{0}E)$
(where
$En{d}_{0}$
denotes tracefree endomorphisms) is nonvanishing. However, if the Poisson structure
$s$
on
$M$
is nonzero, then
$$s:{H}^{0}(M,En{d}_{0}E\otimes K)\to {H}^{0}(M,En{d}_{0}E)$$
is injective. But stable bundles are simple,so
${H}^{0}(M,En{d}_{0}E)=0$
. We deduce that
${H}^{0}(M,En{d}_{0}E\otimes K)$
, and hence also its Serre dual
${H}^{2}(M,En{d}_{0}E)$
, must vanish, so the moduli space is smooth (see [4] ).
This vanishing also gives us by RiemannRoch the dimension of the
$SU\left(k\right)$
moduli space
$${dim}_{\mathbf{C}}\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}=2k{c}_{2}\left(E\right)({k}^{2}1)\frac{1}{12}({c}_{1}^{2}+{c}_{2})\left(M\right).$$
The simplest case would be
$k=2,{c}_{2}\left(E\right)=n$
for our examples
$\mathbf{C}{P}^{2},{\mathbf{F}}_{2}$
(or any rational surface) where
${dim}_{\mathbf{C}}\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}=4n3.$
4.2 The metric on the moduli space
In [
12]
the metric structure of the moduli space of instantons on a Gauduchon manifold is discussed. It differs in general from the Riemannian or Kähler case. In the Riemannian situation, the space of all connections is viewed as an infinitedimensional affine space with group of translations
${\Omega}^{1}(M,\mathfrak{g})$
and
${\mathcal{\mathcal{L}}}^{2}$
metric
$$({a}_{1},{a}_{2})={\int}_{M}tr({a}_{1}\wedge *{a}_{2}).$$
The solutions to the ASD equations form an infinitedimensional submanifold with induced metric, and its quotient by the group of gauge transformations
$\mathcal{G}$
is the moduli space, which acquires the quotient metric. To define this, one identifies the tangent space of the quotient at a point
$\left[A\right]$
with the orthogonal complement to the tangent space of the gauge orbit at the connection
$A$
, with its restricted inner product. The orthogonal complement is identified with the bundlevalued
$1$
forms
$a\in {\Omega}^{1}(M,\mathfrak{g})$
which satisfy the equation
$$\begin{array}{c}{d}_{A}^{*}a(=*dA*a)=0\end{array}$$ 
(27)

As the authors of [
12]
point out, this metric in the Gauduchon case is not Hermitian with respect to the natural complex structure that the moduli space acquires through its identification with the moduli space of stable bundles. Instead of the orthogonality ( 27 ), one takes a different horizontal subspace defined by
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega \wedge {d}_{A}^{c}a=0.\end{array}$$ 
(28)

Lemma 8
$\omega \wedge {d}_{A}^{c}a=dA*a{d}^{c}\omega \wedge a.$
From this we see that when the metric is Kähler,
${d}^{c}\omega =0$
, and so the two horizontality conditions coincide.

Proof: Note that for any
$\psi \in {\Omega}^{0}(M,\mathfrak{g})$
,
$$\begin{array}{c}{d}_{A}^{c}(\omega \wedge tr(a\psi \left)\right)={d}^{c}\omega \wedge tr\left(a\psi \right)+\omega \wedge tr\left({d}_{A}^{c}a\psi \right)\omega \wedge tr(a\wedge {d}_{A}^{c}\psi )\end{array}$$ 
(29)

and
${d}_{A}^{c}\psi ={I}^{1}{d}_{A}I\psi =I{d}_{A}\psi $
, so that
$$\omega \wedge tr(a\wedge {d}_{A}^{c}\psi )=\omega \wedge tr(a\wedge I{d}_{A}\psi )=(a,{d}_{A}\psi ){\omega}^{2}=tr(*a\wedge {d}_{A}\psi ).$$
Integrating ( 29 ) and using Stokes' theorem and the relation above, we get
$${\int}_{M}[{d}^{c}\omega \wedge tr(a\psi )+\omega \wedge tr({d}_{A}^{c}a\psi )tr(dA*a\psi \left)\right]=0$$
so that
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega \wedge {d}_{A}^{c}a=dA*a{d}^{c}\omega \wedge a.\end{array}$$ 
(30)

With this choice of horizontal, the metric on the moduli space is Hermitian with Hermitian form
$$\stackrel{~}{\omega}({a}_{1},{a}_{2})={\int}_{M}\omega \wedge tr({a}_{1}\wedge {a}_{2}).$$
It is shown in [
12]
that
$\stackrel{~}{\omega}$
satisfies
$d{d}^{c}\stackrel{~}{\omega}=0$
. The horizontal subspace ( 28 ) defines a connection on the infinitedimensional principal
$\mathcal{G}$
bundle over the moduli space and its curvature turns out to be of type
$(1,1)$
on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
(see [
12]
). We shall make use of these facts later.
In order to prove Theorem
7 we need first to show that the application of Lübke and Teleman's approach to the two complex structures
${I}_{+}$
and
${I}_{}$
yields the same metric.
The tangent space to the moduli space at a smooth point is the first cohomology of the complex:
$${\Omega}^{0}(M,\mathfrak{g})\stackrel{{d}_{A}}{\u27f6}{\Omega}^{1}(M,\mathfrak{g})\stackrel{{d}_{A}^{+}}{\u27f6}{\Omega}_{+}^{2}(M,\mathfrak{g})$$
where here the
$+$
refers to projection onto the selfdual part. The metric is the induced inner product on the subspace of
${\Omega}^{1}(M,\mathfrak{g})$
defined by the horizontality condition
$\omega \wedge {d}_{A}^{c}a=0$
. We shall write
$\left[a\right]$
for the tangent vector to the moduli space represented by
$a$
.
In our case we have two such horizontality conditions
${\omega}_{}\wedge {d}_{}^{c}a=0$
and
${\omega}_{+}\wedge {d}_{+}^{c}a=0$
(suppressing the subscript
$A$
for clarity) and two representatives
$a$
and
$a+{d}_{A}\psi $
for the same tangent vector. We shall call these plusand minushorizontal respectively.
We prove:
Lemma 9
Let
$a$
and
$a+{d}_{A}\psi $
satisfy
$${\omega}_{}\wedge {d}_{}^{c}a=0,{\omega}_{+}\wedge {d}_{+}^{c}(a+{d}_{A}\psi )=0.$$
Then
$(a,a)=(a+{d}_{A}\psi ,a+{d}_{A}\psi )$
.

Proof: Since in our case
${d}_{}^{c}{\omega}_{}=db=h={d}_{+}^{c}{\omega}_{+}$
our two horizontality conditions are, from ( 30 )
$$dA*ah\wedge a=0dA*(a+{d}_{A}\psi )+h\wedge (a+{d}_{A}\psi )=0$$
and so, eliminating
$h\wedge a$
,
$$2dA*a+{d}_{A}*{d}_{A}\psi +h\wedge {d}_{A}\psi =0.$$
This gives on integration
$${\int}_{M}[2tr(dA*a\psi )+tr(dA*{d}_{A}\psi \psi )+h\wedge tr({d}_{A}\psi \psi \left)\right]=0.$$
But
$tr\left({d}_{A}\psi \psi \right)=dtr{\psi}^{2}/2$
so the last term is
$d\left[\right(tr{\psi}^{2})h/2]$
as
$h$
is closed. By Stokes' theorem we get
$$2(a,{d}_{A}\psi )+({d}_{A}\psi ,{d}_{A}\psi )=0$$
and hence
$$(a+{d}_{A}\psi ,a+{d}_{A}\psi )=(a,a)$$
as required.
4.3 The bihermitian structure
So far, we have seen that
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
has two complex structures and a metric, Hermitian with respect to both. We now need to show that
${d}_{+}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{+}=H={d}_{}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{}$
for an exact
$3$
form
$H$
.
Denote by
$\mathcal{A}$
the affine space of all connections on the principal bundle, then a tangent vector is given by
$a\in {\Omega}^{1}(M,\mathfrak{g})$
and for any
$2$
form
$\omega $
,
$$\Omega ({a}_{1},{a}_{2})={\int}_{M}\omega \wedge tr({a}_{1}\wedge {a}_{2})$$
is a closed and gaugeinvariant
$2$
form on
$\mathcal{A}$
. It is closed because it is translationinvariant on
$\mathcal{A}$
(has “constant coefficients”).
We defined Hermitian forms
${\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{\pm}$
on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
by
$${\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{\pm}\left(\right[{a}_{1}],[{a}_{2}\left]\right)={\Omega}_{\pm}({a}_{1},{a}_{2})={\int}_{M}{\omega}_{\pm}\wedge tr({a}_{1}\wedge {a}_{2})$$
where
${a}_{1},{a}_{2}$
are plus/minushorizontal. Now the formula for the exterior derivative of a
$2$
form
$\alpha $
is
$$3d\alpha ({a}_{1},{a}_{2},{a}_{3})={a}_{1}\cdot \alpha ({a}_{2},{a}_{3})\alpha \left(\right[{a}_{1},{a}_{2}],{a}_{3})+cyclic$$
so, since
$\Omega $
is closed
$$3d\stackrel{~}{\omega}\left(\right[{a}_{1}],[{a}_{2}],[{a}_{3}\left]\right)={\int}_{M}\omega \wedge tr\left(\right[{a}_{1},{a}_{2}{]}_{V})\wedge {a}_{3})+cyclic$$
where
$[{a}_{1},{a}_{2}{]}_{V}$
is the vertical component of the Lie bracket of the two vector fields.
By definition this is the curvature of the
$\mathcal{G}$
connection. If
$\theta ({a}_{1},{a}_{2})\in {\Omega}^{0}(M,\mathfrak{g})$
is this curvature then
$[{a}_{1},{a}_{2}{]}_{V}={d}_{A}\theta ({a}_{1},{a}_{2})$
. Using Stokes' theorem
$$\begin{array}{ccc}3d\stackrel{~}{\omega}\left(\right[{a}_{1}],[{a}_{2}],[{a}_{3}\left]\right)& =& {\int}_{M}\omega \wedge tr\left({d}_{A}\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2})\wedge {a}_{3})+cyclic\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int}_{M}d\omega \wedge tr\left(\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){a}_{3}\right)+{\int}_{M}\omega \wedge tr\left(\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){d}_{A}{a}_{3}\right)+cyclic\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int}_{M}d\omega \wedge tr\left(\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){a}_{3}\right)+cyclic\end{array}$$  
since
${d}_{A}{a}_{3}$
is antiselfdual and
$\omega $
is selfdual so
$\omega \wedge {d}_{A}{a}_{3}=0$
.
Now
${d}^{c}\omega ({a}_{1},{a}_{2},{a}_{3})=d\omega (I{a}_{1},I{a}_{2},I{a}_{3})$
and from [
12]
the curvature of the
$\mathcal{G}$
bundle is of type
$(1,1)$
. This means that
$\theta (I{a}_{2},I{a}_{3})=\theta ({a}_{2},{a}_{3})$
and so, for the structure
${I}_{}$
$$\begin{array}{c}{d}_{}^{c}\stackrel{~}{\omega}\left(\right[{a}_{1}],[{a}_{2}],[{a}_{3}\left]\right)={\int}_{M}{d}_{}^{c}{\omega}_{}\wedge tr\left({\theta}_{}\right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){a}_{3}\right)+cyclic\end{array}$$ 
(31)

with a similar equation for
${I}_{+}$
.
To proceed further we need more information about the curvature
$\theta ({a}_{1},{a}_{2})$
. On the affine space
$\mathcal{A}$
the Lie bracket of
${a}_{1}$
and
${a}_{2}$
considered as vector fields is just
${a}_{1}\cdot {a}_{2}{a}_{2}\cdot {a}_{1}$
where
$a\cdot b$
denotes the flat derivative of
$b$
in the direction
$a$
. The horizontality condition imposes a constraint:
$$dA*{a}_{2}h\wedge {a}_{2}=0.$$
Differentiating the constraint in the direction
${a}_{1}$
gives
$$[{a}_{1},*{a}_{2}]+dA*{a}_{1}\cdot {a}_{2}h\wedge {a}_{1}\cdot {a}_{2}=0.$$
The vertical component of the Lie bracket is
${d}_{A}\theta ({a}_{1},{a}_{2})$
which thus satisfies
$$\begin{array}{c}dA*{d}_{A}\theta h\wedge {d}_{A}\theta +2[{a}_{1},*{a}_{2}]=0.\end{array}$$ 
(32)

Define the second order operator
$\Delta :{\Omega}^{0}(M,\mathfrak{g})\to {\Omega}^{4}(M,\mathfrak{g})$
by
$$\Delta \psi ={d}_{A}*{d}_{A}\psi h\wedge {d}_{A}\psi ,$$
then its formal adjoint is
$${\Delta}^{*}\psi ={d}_{A}*{d}_{A}\psi +h\wedge {d}_{A}\psi $$
and we rewrite ( 32 ) as
$$\begin{array}{c}\Delta \theta ({a}_{1},{a}_{2})+2[{a}_{1},*{a}_{2}]=0\end{array}$$ 
(33)

for plushorizontal vector fields
${a}_{i}$
. Let
${b}_{i}={a}_{i}+{d}_{A}{\psi}_{i}$
be the minushorizontal representatives of
$\left[{a}_{i}\right]$
. By minushorizontality we have
$$0={d}_{A}*{b}_{i}+h\wedge {b}_{i}=dA*({a}_{i}+{d}_{A}{\psi}_{i})+h\wedge ({a}_{i}+{d}_{A}{\psi}_{i})={\Delta}^{*}{\psi}_{i}+dA*{a}_{i}+h\wedge {a}_{i}$$
and together with the plushorizontality condition
$dA*{a}_{i}h\wedge {a}_{i}=0$
we get
$$\begin{array}{c}2h\wedge {a}_{i}={\Delta}^{*}{\psi}_{i}.\end{array}$$ 
(34)

Since
${d}_{}^{c}{\omega}_{}=h$
, each integrand on the right hand side of ( 31 ) is, from ( 34 ), of the form
$$h\wedge tr\left(\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){a}_{3}\right)=tr\left(\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}){\Delta}^{*}{\psi}_{3}/2).$$
Performing the integration and using Stokes' theorem, we obtain
$${\int}_{M}tr\left(\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){\Delta}^{*}{\psi}_{3}\right)/2={\int}_{M}tr(\Delta \theta ({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){\psi}_{3}\right)/2={\int}_{M}tr\left(\right[{a}_{1},*{a}_{2}\left]{\psi}_{3}\right)$$
from ( 33 ).
Working with the curvature of the plusconnection we get a similar expression so that we have two formulae:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{d}_{}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{}\left(\right[{a}_{1}],[{a}_{2}],[{a}_{3}\left]\right)& =& {\int}_{M}tr\left(\right[{a}_{1},*{a}_{2}\left]{\psi}_{3}\right)+cyclic\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{d}_{+}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{+}\left(\right[{a}_{1}],[{a}_{2}],[{a}_{3}\left]\right)& =& {\int}_{M}tr\left(\right[{b}_{1},*{b}_{2}\left]{\psi}_{3}\right)+cyclic\end{array}$$  
Thus to obtain
${d}_{}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{}={d}_{+}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{+}$
, using
${b}_{i}={a}_{i}+{d}_{A}{\psi}_{i}$
in the above leads to the need to prove:
Lemma 10
$${\int}_{M}[tr([{a}_{1},*{d}_{A}{\psi}_{2}]{\psi}_{3})+tr([{d}_{A}{\psi}_{1},*{a}_{2}]{\psi}_{3})+tr([{d}_{A}{\psi}_{1},*{d}_{A}{\psi}_{2}]{\psi}_{3}\left)\right]+cyclic=0.$$

Proof: Picking out the integrand involving
${a}_{1}$
in the cyclic sum we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}tr\left(\right[{a}_{1},*{d}_{A}{\psi}_{2}\left]{\psi}_{3}\right)+tr\left(\right[{d}_{A}{\psi}_{3},*{a}_{1}\left]{\psi}_{2}\right)& =& tr(*{a}_{1}\wedge ([{\psi}_{3},{d}_{A}{\psi}_{2}]+[{d}_{A}{\psi}_{3},{\psi}_{2}]\left)\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& tr(*{a}_{1}\wedge {d}_{A}[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right)\end{array}$$  
and on integrating, this is
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int}_{M}tr(*{a}_{1}\wedge {d}_{A}[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right)& =& {\int}_{M}tr(dA*{a}_{1}[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int}_{M}h\wedge tr\left({a}_{1}\right[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int}_{M}tr\left({\Delta}^{*}{\psi}_{1}\right[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right)/2\end{array}$$  
from ( 34 ). But from the definition of
${\Delta}^{*}$
this is
$$\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{M}tr({d}_{A}*{d}_{A}{\psi}_{1}[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right)\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{M}h\wedge tr\left({d}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\right[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right).$$
The cyclic sum of the second term vanishes since
$$dtr\left({\psi}_{1}\right[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right)=tr\left({d}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\right[{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}\left]\right)+cyclic$$
and
$h$
is closed. Using Stokes' theorem on the first and expanding, the cyclic sum gives
$$\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{M}tr(*{d}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\wedge ([{d}_{A}{\psi}_{2},{\psi}_{3}]+[{\psi}_{2},{d}_{A}{\psi}_{3}])+cyclic$$
which is
$${\int}_{M}tr\left(\right[{d}_{A}{\psi}_{1},*{d}_{A}{\psi}_{2}\left]{\psi}_{3}\right)]+cyclic$$
and this proves the lemma.
We finally need to show that
$H$
is exact. One might expect that we simply define a
$2$
form
$\stackrel{~}{b}$
from the
$2$
form
$b$
on
$M$
by
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}\left(\right[{a}_{1}],[{a}_{2}\left]\right)={\int}_{M}b\wedge tr({a}_{1}\wedge {a}_{2})\end{array}$$ 
(35)

to get
$d\stackrel{~}{b}={d}_{}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{}$
but this does not hold. The equation for the exterior derivative of
$\stackrel{~}{b}$
gives
$$3d\stackrel{~}{b}\left(\right[{a}_{1}],[{a}_{2}],[{a}_{3}\left]\right)={\int}_{M}db\wedge tr\left(\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){a}_{3}\right)+{\int}_{M}b\wedge tr\left(\theta \right({a}_{1},{a}_{2}\left){d}_{A}{a}_{3}\right)+cyclic.$$
When we used this above with
${\omega}_{+},{\omega}_{}$
replacing
$b$
, the second term vanished because
${d}_{A}{a}_{3}$
is antiselfdual and
${\omega}_{\pm}$
are selfdual. This is not the case for a general
$b$
, and will only be true if
$b$
is selfdual. We shall see in Section 5 a more general occurrence of this phenomenon. However we do have the following:
Lemma 11
Any
$2$
form
$b$
on a compact oriented fourmanifold
$M$
is the sum of a closed form and a selfdual form.

Proof: Use the nondegenerate pairing on
$2$
forms
$$(\alpha ,\beta )={\int}_{M}\alpha \wedge \beta .$$
The annihilator of the selfdual forms
${\Omega}_{+}^{2}$
in this pairing is
${\Omega}_{}^{2}$
, and the annihilator of
${\Omega}_{closed}^{2}$
is
${\Omega}_{exact}^{2}$
so the annihilator of
${\Omega}_{+}^{2}+{\Omega}_{closed}^{2}$
is the intersection of
${\Omega}_{}^{2}$
and
${\Omega}_{exact}^{2}$
.
But if
$\alpha $
is exact, then by Stokes' theorem
$${\int}_{M}\alpha \wedge \alpha =0$$
and if
$\alpha \in {\Omega}_{}^{2}$
$${\int}_{M}\alpha \wedge \alpha =(\alpha ,\alpha )$$
so if both hold then
$\alpha =0$
.
It follows from this that
$db=d{b}_{+}$
where
${b}_{+}$
is selfdual, and then ( 35 ) does define a form
${\stackrel{~}{b}}_{+}$
on the moduli space. It follows than that
$d{\stackrel{~}{b}}_{+}={d}_{}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{}={d}_{+}^{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{+}$
.
4.4 The Poisson structures on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
As we saw in Proposition 5 , a generalized Kähler structure defines a holomorphic Poisson structure for each of the complex structures
${I}_{+},{I}_{}$
. We shall determine these on the instanton moduli space next.
On the moduli space of stable bundles over a Poisson surface
$M$
, there is a canonical holomorphic Poisson structure, defined by Bottacin in [
4]
as follows. The holomorphic tangent space at a bundle
$E$
is the sheaf cohomology group
${H}^{1}(M,EndE)$
and by Serre duality, the cotangent space is
${H}^{1}(M,EndE\otimes K)$
. The Poisson structure on
$M$
is a holomorphic section
$s$
of the anticanonical bundle
${K}^{*}$
and for
$\alpha ,\beta \in {H}^{1}(M,EndE\otimes K)$
, the Poisson structure
$\sigma $
on the moduli space is defined by taking
$tr\left(\alpha \beta \right)\in {H}^{2}(M,{K}^{2})$
, multiplying by
$s\in {H}^{0}(M,{K}^{*})$
to get
$$\sigma (\alpha ,\beta )=str\left(\alpha \beta \right)\in {H}^{2}(M,K)\sim =\mathbf{C}.$$
The definition is very simple, the difficult part of [
4]
is proving the vanishing of the Schouten bracket.
Theorem 12
Let
${\sigma}_{+}$
be the
${I}_{+}$
Poisson structure defined by the generalized Kähler structure on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
. Then
${\sigma}_{+}/2$
is the canonical structure on the moduli space of
${I}_{+}$
stable bundles.

Proof: In the generalized Kähler setup, the Poisson structure
${\sigma}_{+}$
is defined by the
$(0,2)$
part of
${\omega}_{}$
under the antilinear identification
${T}^{1,0}\sim =({\overline{T}}^{*}{)}^{0,1}$
defined by the metric.
A tangent vector to
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
is defined by
$a\in {\Omega}^{1}(M,\mathfrak{g})$
satisfying
${d}_{A}^{+}a=0$
, and this implies that
${a}^{0,1}\in {\Omega}^{0,1}(M,EndE)$
satisfies
${\overline{\partial}}_{A}{a}^{0,1}=0\in {\Omega}^{0,2}(M,EndE)$
, which is the tangent vector in the holomorphic setting – it is a Dolbeault representative for a class in
${H}^{1}(M,EndE)$
. The conjugate
${a}^{1,0}=\overline{{a}^{0,1}}$
defines a complex cotangent vector by the linear form
$${b}^{0,1}\mapsto {\int}_{M}{\omega}_{+}\wedge tr({a}^{1,0}\wedge {b}^{0,1})$$
and this is the antilinear identification
${T}^{1,0}\sim =({\overline{T}}^{*}{)}^{0,1}$
on the moduli space. However
${\omega}_{+}\wedge {a}^{1,0}\in {\Omega}^{2,1}(M,EndE)$
is not a Dolbeault representative for the Serre dual – it is not
$\overline{\partial}$
closed – so to see concretely the canonical Poisson structure we must find a good representative
$(2,1)$
form. Now from
${d}_{A}^{+}a=0$
we have
${\omega}_{+}\wedge {d}_{A}({a}^{1,0}+{a}^{0,1})=0$
and from the horizontality condition
${\omega}_{+}\wedge {d}_{+}^{c}a=0$
, we obtain
${\omega}_{+}\wedge {d}_{A}({a}^{1,0}{a}^{0,1})=0$
so putting them together
$$\begin{array}{c}{\omega}_{+}\wedge {\overline{\partial}}_{A}{a}^{1,0}=0,{\omega}_{+}\wedge {\partial}_{A}{a}^{0,1}=0\end{array}$$ 
(36)

From Lemma 8 applied to
${I}_{+}$
and
${I}_{}$
we have
$${\omega}_{\pm}\wedge {d}_{\pm}^{c}a=dA*a{d}_{\pm}^{c}{\omega}_{\pm}\wedge a$$
so that since
${d}_{}^{c}{\omega}_{}={d}_{+}^{c}{\omega}_{+}$
,
$${\omega}_{}\wedge {d}_{}^{c}a={\omega}_{+}\wedge {d}_{+}^{c}a+2{d}_{+}^{c}{\omega}_{+}\wedge a.$$
If
$a={a}^{1,0}+{d}_{A}\psi $
is minushorizontal then this equation tells us that
$$0={\omega}_{+}\wedge {d}_{+}^{c}{d}_{A}\psi +2{d}_{+}^{c}{\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}^{1,0}+{d}_{A}\psi )$$
since
${a}^{1,0}$
is plushorizontal. We rewrite this as
$$\begin{array}{c}2i{\omega}_{+}\wedge {\overline{\partial}}_{A}{\partial}_{A}\psi +2i\overline{\partial}{\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}\psi )2i\partial {\omega}_{+}\wedge {\overline{\partial}}_{A}\psi =0\end{array}$$ 
(37)

using the fact that
${\omega}_{+}\wedge F=0$
where
$F$
is the curvature of the connection
$A$
. This gives, using
$\overline{\partial}\partial {\omega}_{+}=0$
and ( 36 ),
$$\begin{array}{c}{\overline{\partial}}_{A}[{\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}\psi )+\psi \partial {\omega}_{+}]=0\end{array}$$ 
(38)

Here, then, we have a
$\overline{\partial}$
closed form, and it represents the dual of
$\left[{a}^{0,1}\right]$
using the metric on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
since, from Stokes' theorem,
$${\int}_{M}[{\omega}_{+}\wedge tr(({a}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}\psi )\wedge {b}^{0,1})+\partial {\omega}_{+}\wedge tr(\psi {b}^{0,1}\left)\right]={\int}_{M}{\omega}_{+}\wedge tr({a}^{1,0}\wedge {b}^{0,1}){\int}_{M}{\omega}_{+}\wedge tr\left(\psi {\partial}_{A}{b}^{0,1}\right)$$
and the second term on the right hand side vanishes from ( 36 ).
Now where the Poisson structure
$s$
on
$M$
is nonvanishing we have a closed
$2$
form
${\beta}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}$
which from Proposition 4 can be expressed as
$2i{\omega}_{+}(p1)\overline{\gamma}/2+(p+1)\gamma /2.$
Since this is closed, and
$\gamma $
is of type
$(2,0)$
,
$4id{\omega}_{+}=\partial p\wedge \overline{\gamma}\overline{\partial}p\wedge \gamma $
and so
$$\begin{array}{c}4i\partial {\omega}_{+}=\overline{\partial}p\wedge \gamma \end{array}$$ 
(39)

We can therefore rewrite the Dolbeault representative as
$${\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}\psi )+i\psi \overline{\partial}p\wedge \gamma /4.$$
The canonical Poisson structure is therefore obtained by integrating over
$M$
the form
$$\begin{array}{c}tr\left[s\right({\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}_{1}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{1})+i{\psi}_{1}\overline{\partial}p\wedge \gamma /4)\wedge ({\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}_{2}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{2})+i{\psi}_{2}\overline{\partial}p\wedge \gamma /4\left)\right]\end{array}$$ 
(40)

Take the product of the two expressions with an
${\omega}_{+}$
factor. For
$(1,0)$
forms
$a,b$
, at each point
$\left[s\right({\omega}_{+}\wedge a\left)\right]\wedge {\omega}_{+}\wedge b$
is a skew form on
${T}^{1,0}$
with values in
${\Lambda}^{4}{T}^{*}$
depending on a Hermitian form and a
$(2,0)$
form
$\gamma $
(recall from Proposition 6 that
$s\gamma =2i$
). By
$SU\left(2\right)$
invariance this must be a multiple of
$\overline{\gamma}\wedge a\wedge b$
and a simple calculation shows that
$$\left[s\right({\omega}_{+}\wedge a\left)\right]\wedge {\omega}_{+}\wedge b=i\frac{{\omega}_{+}^{2}}{\gamma \overline{\gamma}}\overline{\gamma}\wedge a\wedge b.$$
However from ( 20 ) and
$r=i({p}^{2}1)/4$
we see that
$$\frac{{\omega}_{+}^{2}}{\gamma \overline{\gamma}}=\frac{1}{8}(1{p}^{2}).$$
But now from Proposition 4 ,
${\omega}_{}=p{\omega}_{+}+i({p}^{2}1)\overline{\gamma}/4i({p}^{2}1)\gamma /4$
and so
$$\left[s\right({\omega}_{+}\wedge a\left)\right]\wedge {\omega}_{+}\wedge b=\frac{i}{2}{\omega}_{}^{0,2}\wedge a\wedge b=\frac{i}{2}{\omega}_{}\wedge a\wedge b$$
since
$a$
and
$b$
are of type
$(1,0)$
. Thus the first two expressions contribute to the integral the term
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{M}{\omega}_{}\wedge tr({a}_{1}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{1})\wedge ({a}_{2}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{2})\end{array}$$ 
(41)

The last two terms in ( 40 ) give zero contribution because of the common
$\overline{\partial}p$
factor.
For the other terms, the relation
$s\gamma =2i$
means that we are considering the integral of
$$\begin{array}{c}tr[{\psi}_{1}\overline{\partial}p\wedge {\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}_{2}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{2}\left)\right]/2+tr[{\psi}_{2}\overline{\partial}p\wedge {\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}_{1}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\left)\right]/2.\end{array}$$ 
(42)

Take the first expression. This no longer contains the singular term
$\gamma $
so we can integrate over the manifold and using Stokes' theorem we get
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{M}p{\omega}_{+}\wedge tr({\overline{\partial}}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\wedge ({a}_{2}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{2}\left)\right)+ptr\left[{\psi}_{1}{\overline{\partial}}_{A}\right[{\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}\psi )]\end{array}$$ 
(43)

Now from ( 38 ) and ( 39 )
$${\overline{\partial}}_{A}[{\omega}_{+}\wedge ({a}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}\psi \left)\right]={\overline{\partial}}_{A}(\psi \partial {\omega}_{+})={\overline{\partial}}_{A}\psi \wedge \overline{\partial}p\wedge \gamma /4i$$
Using this we can write ( 43 ) as
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{M}p{\omega}_{+}tr({\overline{\partial}}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\wedge ({a}_{2}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{2}\left)\right)\frac{i}{8}{\int}_{M}p\overline{\partial}p\wedge tr\left({\overline{\partial}}_{A}{\psi}_{1}{\psi}_{2}\right)\wedge \gamma \end{array}$$ 
(44)

Now
${\omega}_{}^{1,1}=p{\omega}_{+}$
and the first term integrates a
$(1,1)$
form against
$p{\omega}_{+}$
so we write this as
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{M}{\omega}_{}\wedge tr({\overline{\partial}}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\wedge ({a}_{2}^{1,0}+{\partial}_{A}{\psi}_{2}\left)\right)\end{array}$$ 
(45)

From Proposition 4 , we have
$${\omega}_{}^{2,0}=i({p}^{2}1)\gamma /4$$
so the last term in ( 44 ) is
$$\frac{1}{4}{\int}_{M}\overline{\partial}{\omega}^{2,0}\wedge tr\left({\overline{\partial}}_{A}{\psi}_{1}{\psi}_{2}\right)$$
which using Stokes' theorem gives
$$\frac{1}{4}{\int}_{M}{\omega}_{}^{2,0}\wedge tr\left({\overline{\partial}}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\overline{\partial}{\psi}_{2}\right)$$
which we write as
$$\frac{1}{4}{\int}_{M}{\omega}_{}\wedge tr\left({\overline{\partial}}_{A}{\psi}_{1}\overline{\partial}{\psi}_{2}\right).$$
In the full integral there is another contribution of this form from the second term in ( 42 ) and adding all terms in ( 40 ) we obtain
$$\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{M}{\omega}_{}\wedge tr({a}_{1}^{1,0}+{d}_{A}{\psi}_{1})\wedge tr({a}_{2}^{1,0}+{d}_{A}{\psi}_{2}).$$
Since
${a}_{1}^{1,0}+{d}_{A}{\psi}_{1},{a}_{2}^{1,0}+{d}_{A}{\psi}_{2}$
are minushorizontal representatives of
${a}_{1}^{1,0},{a}_{2}^{1,0}$
we see from the definition of
${\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{}$
that this is
${\stackrel{~}{\omega}}_{}^{0,2}/2$
evaluated on those two vectors and hence is half the Poisson structure defined by the bihermitian metric.
$\square $
4.5 The generalized Kähler structure
As we have seen, the bihermitian structure of
${M}^{4}$
naturally induces a similar structure on the moduli space of instantons, but we only get a pair
${J}_{1},{J}_{2}$
of commuting generalized complex structures by choosing a
$2$
form with
$db=H$
. In that respect
${J}_{1},{J}_{2}$
are defined modulo a closed Bfield but we can still extract some information about them. In particular the formula ( 19 ) shows that the real Poisson structures defined by
${J}_{1}$
and
${J}_{2}$
, namely
${\omega}_{+}^{1}\pm {\omega}_{}^{1}$
, are unchanged by
$b\mapsto b+B$
. We shall determine the symplectic foliation on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
determined by these Poisson structures, which relates to the “type” of the generalized complex structure as discussed by Gualtieri. The symplectic foliation of a Poisson structure
$\pi $
is determined by the subspace of the cotangent bundle annihilated by
$\pi :{T}^{*}\to T$
. From ( 19 ), in our case
$$ker{\pi}_{1}=ker({I}_{+}+{I}_{}),ker{\pi}_{2}=ker({I}_{+}{I}_{})$$
where
${I}_{+},{I}_{}$
act on
${T}^{*}$
.
Note that if
${I}_{+}a={I}_{}a$
then
$$[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]a={I}_{+}{I}_{}a{I}_{}{I}_{+}a=({I}_{+}{)}^{2}a({I}_{}{)}^{2}a=a+a=0$$
so that
$ker({I}_{+}{I}_{})\subset ker[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]$
, and similarly if
${I}_{+}a={I}_{}a$
. It follows that if
${I}_{+}a={I}_{}a$
, then
${I}_{+}\left({I}_{+}a\right)={I}_{}\left({I}_{+}a\right)$
since both sides are equal to
$a$
. Thus
$ker{\pi}_{1}$
and
$ker{\pi}_{2}$
are complex subspaces of
$ker[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]$
(with respect to either structure).
Now the kernel of
$[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]$
is, from 3.3 , the kernel of the holomorphic Poisson structure
${\sigma}_{+}$
(or
${\sigma}_{}$
). But Theorem 12 tells us that this is the canonical Poisson structure on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
.
Its kernel is easily determined (see [
4]
). Recall that the Poisson structure is defined, as a map from
$({T}^{1,0}{)}^{*}$
to
${T}^{1,0}$
, by the multiplication operation of the section
$s$
of
${K}^{*}$
:
$$s:{H}^{1}(M,EndE\otimes K)\to {H}^{1}(M,EndE).$$
If
$D$
is the anticanonical divisor of
$s$
then we have an exact sequence of sheaves
$$0\to {\mathcal{O}}_{M}(EndE\otimes K)\stackrel{s}{\to}{\mathcal{O}}_{M}(EndE)\to {\mathcal{O}}_{D}(EndE)\to 0$$
and the above is part of the long exact cohomology sequence. Since a stable bundle is simple,
${H}^{0}(M,EndE)$
is just the scalars, so the map
${H}^{0}(M,EndE)\to {H}^{0}(D,EndE)$
just maps to the scalars. Hence the kernel of
${\sigma}_{+}$
is isomorphic from the exact sequence to
${H}^{0}(D,En{d}_{0}E)$
under the connecting homomorphism:
$${\delta}_{+}:{H}^{0}(D,EndE)\to {H}^{1}(M,EndE\otimes K).$$
When
$D$
, an anticanonical divisor, is of multiplicity
$1$
and smooth, it is an elliptic curve by the adjunction formula:
$KD+{D}^{2}=2g2$
implies
$0=K(K)+(K{)}^{2}=2g2$
. Generically a holomorphic bundle on an elliptic curve is a sum of line bundles, and then the dimension of
${H}^{0}(D,En{d}_{0}E)$
is
$k1$
if
$rkE=k$
. Thus the real dimension of
$ker[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]$
is at least
$2(k1)$
.
Now the divisor
$D$
is, by definition, the subset of
$M$
on which
${I}_{+}=\pm {I}_{}$
, say
${I}_{+}={I}_{}$
.
Thus the complex structure of the bundle
$E$
determined by its ASD connection is the same on
$D$
for
${I}_{+}$
and
${I}_{}$
. So the same holomorphic section
$u$
of
$En{d}_{0}E$
on
$D$
maps complex linearly in two different ways to the cotangent space of
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
. To study these maps we should really say that there are real isomorphisms
$${\alpha}_{\pm}:{H}_{\pm}^{1}(M,EndE\otimes K)\to {T}_{\left[A\right]}^{*}$$
such that
${\alpha}_{\pm}$
is
${I}_{\pm}$
complex linear.
Proposition 13
${\alpha}_{+}{\delta}_{+}={\alpha}_{}{\delta}_{}$

Proof: Recall how the connecting homomorphism is defined in Dolbeault terms, for the moment in the case where
$D$
has multiplicity one: we have a holomorphic section
$u$
of
$En{d}_{0}E$
on
$D$
, and then extend using a partition of unity to a
${C}^{\infty}$
section
$\stackrel{~}{u}$
on
$M$
. Then since
$u$
is holomorphic on
$D$
,
$\overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{u}$
is divisible by
$s$
, the section of
${K}^{*}$
whose divisor is
$D$
. Then
$\delta \left(u\right)$
is represented by the
$(2,1)$
form
${s}^{1}{\overline{\partial}}_{A}\stackrel{~}{u}$
.
Let
$a\in {T}_{\left[A\right]}$
be a tangent vector to the moduli space, so
$a\in {\Omega}^{1}(M,EndE)$
and satisfies
${d}_{A}^{+}a=0$
. So
${\overline{\partial}}_{A}{a}^{0,1}=0$
and we evaluate the cotangent vector
${\delta}_{+}\left(u\right)$
on
$a$
to get
$${\int}_{M}tr({s}^{1}{\overline{\partial}}_{A}\stackrel{~}{u}\wedge a).$$
But
${s}^{1}=\gamma /2i$
so this is
$$\frac{1}{2i}{\int}_{M}\gamma tr({\overline{\partial}}_{A}\stackrel{~}{u}\wedge a).$$
Away from the divisor
$D$
, we have
$$\overline{\partial}(\gamma \wedge tr(\stackrel{~}{u}a\left)\right)=\gamma \wedge tr({\overline{\partial}}_{A}\stackrel{~}{u}\wedge a)$$
since both
$\gamma $
and
$a$
are
$\overline{\partial}$
closed. By Stokes' theorem the integral is reduced to an integral around the unit circle bundle of the normal bundle of
$D$
and from there to an integral over
$D$
. In fact, if
$\gamma $
has a simple pole along
$D$
then locally
$$\gamma =f({z}_{1},{z}_{2})\frac{d{z}_{1}\wedge d{z}_{2}}{{z}_{1}}$$
where
${z}_{1}=0$
is the equation of
$D$
. The holomorphic oneform
$f(0,{z}_{2})d{z}_{2}$
is then globally defined on
$D$
– the residue
${\gamma}_{0}$
of the meromorphic
$2$
form. This residue is the same for
${I}_{+}$
and
${I}_{}$
(from Proposition 4 the meromorphic form for
${I}_{}$
is
$2i{\omega}_{+}(p1)/2\gamma +(p+1)/2\overline{\gamma}$
and
$p=1$
on
$D$
). Thus the integral becomes
$$\frac{1}{2i}{\int}_{D}{\gamma}_{0}\wedge tr\left(ua\right).$$
This is defined entirely in terms of the data on
$D$
and so is the same for
${I}_{+}$
and
${I}_{}$
.
When the divisor has multiplicity
$d$
, the section
$u$
extends holomorphically to the
$(d1)$
fold formal neighbourhood of the curve and our
${C}^{\infty}$
extension must agree with this. The result remains true. (Note that the discussion of Poisson surfaces and moduli spaces via the residue is the point of view advanced in Khesin's work [
10]
.)
$\square $
Corollary 14
The two real Poisson structures
${\pi}_{1},{\pi}_{2}$
defined by the generalized complex structures
${J}_{1},{J}_{2}$
on the moduli space
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
of
$SU\left(k\right)$
instantons have kernels of dimension
$0$
and
$\ge 2(k1)$
.

Proof: We saw at the beginning of the Section that if
${I}_{+}a={I}_{}a$
then
$[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]a=0$
. Proposition 13 shows that
${I}_{+}$
and
${I}_{}$
agree on the kernel of
$[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]$
, so that
$ker({I}_{+}{I}_{})=ker[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]$
.
Now
$ker({I}_{+}{I}_{})$
is the kernel of Poisson structure
${\pi}_{1}$
say, which is isomorphic to
${H}^{0}(D,En{d}_{0}E)$
and has, as we have seen, at least
$2(k1)$
real dimensions. The other Poisson structure
${\pi}_{2}$
has kernel
$ker({I}_{+}+{I}_{})$
. But this also lies in the kernel of
$[{I}_{+},{I}_{}]$
so
${I}_{+}a={I}_{}a$
. With
${I}_{+}a={I}_{}a$
this means
$a=0$
.
$\square $
The generalized complex structure
${J}_{2}$
on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
where the kernel of the Poisson structure is zero is therefore of the form
$exp(B+i\omega )$
and it is tempting to associate it to the generalized complex structure of symplectic type on
${M}^{4}$
. However, as we have seen, there appears to be no way to naturally associate or even define these structures, since the
$2$
form
$b$
does not descend to the moduli space.
4.6 Examples of symplectic leaves
We saw in the previous section that the symplectic leaves of
${\pi}_{1}$
are the same as the the symplectic leaves of the canonical complex Poisson structure on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
.
The simplest example is to take
$\mathbf{C}{P}^{2}$
with the anticanonical divisor defined by a triple line :
$D=3L$
. The moduli space of stable rank
$2$
bundles with
${c}_{2}=2$
has dimension
$4\times 23=5$
and has a very concrete description. Such a bundle
$E$
is trivial on a general projective line but jumps to
$\mathcal{O}\left(1\right)\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)$
on the lines which are tangent to a nonsingular conic
${C}_{E}$
. The moduli space
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
is then just the space of nonsingular conics, which is a homogeneous space of
$PGL(3,\mathbf{C})$
.
The subgroup preserving
$L$
(the line at infinity say) is the affine group
$A\left(2\right)$
and if it preserves the Poisson structure it fixes
$d{z}_{1}\wedge d{z}_{2}$
. Hence the
$5$
dimensional unimodular affine group
$SA\left(2\right)$
acts on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
preserving the Poisson structure. The subgroup
$G$
which fixes the conic
${z}_{1}{z}_{2}=a$
consists of the transformations
$({z}_{1},{z}_{2})\mapsto (\lambda {z}_{1},{\lambda}^{1}{z}_{2})$
so for each
$a$
, the orbit of the conic under
$SA\left(2\right)$
is isomorphic to the
$4$
dimensional quotient
$SA\left(2\right)/G$
. These orbits are the generic symplectic leaves of the Poisson structure, and thus are homogeneous symplectic and hence isomorphic to coadjoint orbits.
In fact if
$z\mapsto Az+b$
is in the Lie algebra of
$SA\left(2\right)$
then
$G$
is the stabilizer of the linear map
$f(A,b)={A}_{11}$
so that
$SA\left(2\right)/G$
is the orbit of
$f$
in the dual of the Lie algebra. This deals with conics which meet
$L$
in two points. The ones which are tangential to
$L$
(i.e. the bundles for which
$L$
is a jumping line) are parabolas: e.g.
${z}_{1}^{2}={z}_{2}$
. The identity component of the stabilizer of this is the onedimensional group
$({z}_{1},{z}_{2})\mapsto ({z}_{1}+c,2c{z}_{1}+{z}_{2}+{c}^{2})$
and this stabilizes the linear map
$(A,b)\mapsto {A}_{21}+4{b}_{1}$
, so we again have a coadjoint orbit.
In general, the symplectic leaves are roughly given by the bundles
$E$
on
$M$
which restrict to the same bundle on the anticanonical divisor
$D$
. “Roughly”, because we are looking at equivalence classes and a stable bundle on
$M$
may not restrict to a stable bundle on
$D$
, so there may not be a welldefined map from
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
to a Hausdorff moduli space. On the other hand this is the quotient space of a (singular) foliation so we don't expect that.
When
$D$
is the triple line
$3L$
in
$\mathbf{C}{P}^{2}$
there is an alternative way of describing these leaves. On a generic line
$E$
is trivial and the sections along that line define the fibre of a vector bundle
$F$
on the dual plane, outside the curve
$J$
of jumping lines. If we take a section of
$E$
on
$L$
we can try and extend it to the first order neighbourhood of
$L$
. Since the normal bundle to
$L$
is
$\mathcal{O}\left(1\right)$
there is an exact sequence of sheaves for sections on the
$n$
th order neighbourhood:
$$0\to \mathcal{O}\left(E\right(n\left)\right)\to {\mathcal{O}}^{\left(n\right)}\left(E\right)\to {\mathcal{O}}^{(n1)}\left(E\right)\to 0.$$
Since
${H}^{0}(\mathbf{C}{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}(1\left)\right)={H}^{1}(\mathbf{C}{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}(1\left)\right)=0$
, any section has a unique extension to the first order neighbourhood: this defines a connection on
$F$
. The extension to the second order neighbourhood is obstructed since
${H}^{1}(\mathbf{C}{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}(2\left)\right)\sim =\mathbf{C}$
and this obstruction is the curvature of the connection (see [
9]
for details of this twistorial construction).
What it means is that if
$L$
is not a jumping line, then
$E$
restricted to
$3L$
is essentially the curvature of the connection on
$F$
at the point
$\ell $
in the dual plane defined by the line
$L$
, and the symplectic leaves are obtained by fixing the equivalence class of the curvature at that point. The curvature acquires a double pole on
$J$
.
From this point of view, the case
$k=2,{c}_{1}=0,{c}_{2}=2$
concerns an
$SO(3,\mathbf{C})$
invariant connection on a rank
$2$
bundle on the complement of a conic, and this is essentially the LeviCivita connection of
$\mathbf{R}{P}^{2}$
complexified. This is an
$O\left(2\right)$
connection which becomes an
$SO\left(2\right)$
connection on
${S}^{2}$
with curvature
$$\frac{dz\wedge d\overline{z}}{(1+z{}^{2}{)}^{2}}.$$
So the bundle on
$D$
is equivalent to the transform of the complexification of this by a projective transformation. If the dual conic is defined by the symmetric
$3\times 3$
matrix
${Q}_{ij}$
and
$x$
is a vector representing
$\ell $
then the curvature is
$$\frac{(detQ{)}^{2/3}}{Q(x,x{)}^{2}}.$$
The symplectic leaves are then given by the equation
$detQ=aQ(x,x{)}^{3}$
for varying
$a$
.
5 A quotient construction
It is wellknown that the moduli space of instantons on a hyperkähler
$4$
manifold is hyperkähler and this can be viewed as an example in infinite dimensions of a hyperkähler quotient – the quotient of the space of all connections by the action of the group of gauge transformations. One may ask if, instead of the painful integration by parts that we did in the previous sections, there is a cleaner way of viewing the definition of a generalized Kähler structure on
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
. The problem is that such a quotient would have to encompass not only the hyperkähler quotient but also the ordinary Kähler quotient, and in finite dimensions these are very different – the dimension of the quotient in particular is different!
We offer next an example of a generalized Kähler quotient which could be adapted to replace the differential geometric arguments in the previous sections for the case of a torus or K3, and at least gives another reason why the calculations should hold.
It also brings out in a natural way the frustrating feature that the
$2$
form
$b$
does not descend in general to the quotient.
We suppose the generalized Kähler structure is even and is given by global forms
${\rho}_{1}=exp{\beta}_{1},{\rho}_{2}=exp{\beta}_{2}$
where
${\beta}_{1},{\beta}_{2}$
are closed complex forms on a real manifold
$M$
of dimension
$4k$
. This is the test situation we have been considering throughout this paper. From Lemma 1 , the compatibility (
${J}_{1}{J}_{2}={J}_{2}{J}_{1}$
) is equivalent to
$$({\beta}_{1}{\beta}_{2}{)}^{k+1}=0,({\beta}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}{)}^{k+1}=0.$$
Now suppose a Lie group
$G$
acts, preserving the forms
${\beta}_{1},{\beta}_{2}$
, and giving complex moment maps
${\mu}_{1},{\mu}_{2}$
. To make a quotient, we would like to take the joint zero set of
${\mu}_{1}$
and
${\mu}_{2}$
and divide by the group
$G$
, but these are two complex functions so if they were generic we would get as a quotient a manifold of dimension
$dimM5dimG$
instead of
$dimM4dimG$
.
To avoid this, we need to assume that
${\beta}_{1},{\beta}_{2},{\overline{\beta}}_{1},{\overline{\beta}}_{2}$
are linearly dependent over
$\mathbf{R}$
.

Remark: If we were trying to set up the moduli space of instantons as a quotient of the space of all connections on a K3 surface or a torus, the following lemma links the condition of linear dependence of the moment maps to the necessity to choose a selfdual
$b$
.
Lemma 15
If
$dimM=4$
, then
${\beta}_{1},{\beta}_{2},{\overline{\beta}}_{1},{\overline{\beta}}_{2}$
are linearly independent over
$\mathbf{R}$
at each point if and only if
$b$
is selfdual.

Proof: From Proposition 4 we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\beta}_{1}+{\overline{\beta}}_{1}& =& 2b(p1)(\gamma +\overline{\gamma})/2\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\beta}_{2}+{\overline{\beta}}_{2}& =& 2b(p+1)(\gamma +\overline{\gamma})/2\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}i({\beta}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{1})& =& 2{\omega}_{+}(p1)i(\gamma \overline{\gamma})/2\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}i({\beta}_{2}{\overline{\beta}}_{2})& =& 2{\omega}_{+}(p+1)i(\gamma \overline{\gamma})/2\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \end{array}$$  
We can easily solve these for
$b,{\omega}_{+},\gamma +\overline{\gamma},i(\gamma \overline{\gamma})$
in terms of the
${\beta}_{i}$
.
If
$b$
is selfdual, it is a real linear combination of
${\omega}_{+},\gamma +\overline{\gamma},i(\gamma \overline{\gamma})$
since
$\gamma $
is of type
$(2,0)$
relative to
${I}_{+}$
, hence we get a linear relation amongst the left hand sides.
Conversely, a linear relation among the left hand sides will express
$b$
in terms of
${\omega}_{+},\gamma +\overline{\gamma},i(\gamma \overline{\gamma})$
unless it is of the form
$$({\beta}_{1}+{\overline{\beta}}_{1})({\beta}_{2}+{\overline{\beta}}_{2})+i\lambda ({\beta}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{1})+i\mu ({\beta}_{2}{\overline{\beta}}_{2})=0.$$
But the
$(1,1)$
component of this is
$2(\mu \lambda ){\omega}_{+}$
so
$\lambda =\mu $
and then the relation can be written
$$(1+i\lambda )({\beta}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2})+(1i\lambda )({\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\beta}_{2})=0$$
but
$({\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\beta}_{2})$
is of type
$(2,0)$
relative to
${I}_{}$
so this is impossible.
We see that the condition for
$b$
to define
$\stackrel{~}{b}$
on the moduli space
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
is related to the linear dependence issue of the moment maps.
Returning to the general case, for each vector field
$X$
from the Lie algebra of
$G$
we have
${i}_{X}{\beta}_{i}=d{\mu}_{i}$
and so
${\beta}_{i}$
restricted to
${\mu}_{1}=0={\mu}_{2}$
is annihilated by
$X$
, and invariant under the group and hence is the pullback of a form
${\stackrel{~}{\beta}}_{i}$
on the quotient, which is also closed.
In the bihermitian interpretation,
${\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\overline{\beta}}_{2}$
is a nondegenerate
$(2,0)$
form relative to
${I}_{+}$
– a holomorphic symplectic form – and the quotient can then be identified with the holomorphic symplectic quotient. In particular if the complex dimension of the quotient is
$2m$
then
$({\stackrel{~}{\beta}}_{1}{\stackrel{~}{\beta}}_{2}{)}^{m+1}=0$
and
$({\stackrel{~}{\beta}}_{1}{\stackrel{~}{\beta}}_{2}{)}^{m}\ne 0$
. Similarly
$({\overline{\beta}}_{1}{\beta}_{2})$
is
$(2,0)$
with respect to
${I}_{}$
and we get the same property for
$({\stackrel{~}{\beta}}_{1}{\overline{\stackrel{~}{\beta}}}_{2})$
. From Lemma 1 we have a generalized Kähler structure on the quotient.
Note that in this generic case the Poisson structures on the quotient are nondegenerate.
References

M. Abouzaid and M. Boyarchenko, Local structure of generalized complex manifolds, math.DG/0412084

V. Apostolov, P. Gauduchon and G. Grantcharov, Bihermitian structures on complex surfaces, Proc. London Math. Soc. 79 (1999), 414–428

C. Bartocci and E. Macrì, Classification of Poisson surfaces, Communications in Contemporary Mathematics (to appear) math.AG/0402338.

F. Bottacin, Poisson structures on moduli spaces of sheaves over Poisson surfaces, Invent. Math. 121 (1995), 421–436.

N. P. Buchdahl, HermitianEinstein connections and stable vector bundles over compact complex surfaces, Math. Ann. 280 (1988) 625–648.

S. J. Gates, C. M. Hull and M. Roček, Twisted multiplets and new supersymmetric nonlinear
$\sigma $
models. Nuclear Phys. B 248 (1984), 157–186.

M. Gualtieri, Generalized complex geometry, math.DG/0401221

N. J. Hitchin, Generalized CalabiYau manifolds, Q. J. Math. 54 (2003) 281–308

J. Hurtubise, Twistors and the geometry of bundles over
${P}_{2}\left(C\right)$
, Proc. London Math. Soc. 55 (1987) 450–464.

B. Khesin and A. Rosly, Symplectic geometry on moduli spaces of holomorphic bundles over complex surfaces, The Arnoldfest (Toronto, ON, 1997), 311–323, Fields Inst. Commun., 24 Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (1999).

J. Li and ST. Yau, Hermitian YangMills connections on nonKähler manifolds, in “Mathematical aspects of string theory”, World Scientific (1987)

M. Lübke and A. Teleman, “The KobayashiHitchin correspondence”, World Scientific, Singapore (1995)