ScalingStacks

On the constant scalar curvature K\"ahler metrics, apriori estimates

Chen, Xiuxiong · Cheng, Jingrui

Original paper

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

On the constant scalar curvature Kähler metrics(I)—
Apriori estimates

Xiuxiong Chen, Jingrui Cheng
Date: August 24, 2026
Abstract.

In this paper, we derive apriori estimates for constant scalar curvature Kähler metrics on a compact Kähler manifold. We show that higher order derivatives can be estimated in terms of a C0C^{0} bound for the Kähler potential. We also discuss some local versions of these estimates which can be of independent interest.

Dedicated to Sir Simon Donaldson for his 60th Birthday

[020A]

1. Introduction

This is the first of a series of three papers in the study of of constant scalar curvature Kähler metrics (cscK metrics), following a program outlined in [9]. In this paper, we focus on establishing a priori estimates for cscK metrics in compact Kähler manifold without boundary. Our estimates can be easily adapted to extremal Kähler metrics and for simplicity of presentations, we leave such an extension to the interested readers except to note that for extremal Kähler metrics, its scalar curvature is a priori bounded depending on Kähler class. In the subsequent two papers, we will use these estimates (and its generalizations) to study the Calabi-Donaldson theory on the geometry of extremal Kähler metrics, in particular, to establish the celebrated conjecture of Donaldson on geodesic stability as we as the well known properness conjecture relating the existence of cscK metrics with the properness of K energy functional.

In [9], the first named author advocates a new continuity path which links the cscK equation to certain second order elliptic equation, apparently inspired by the success of the classical continuity path for Kähler Einstein (KE) metrics and Donaldson’s continuity path for conical KE metrics. In general, apriori estimates are usually the prelude to the success of any continuity path aiming to obtain existence results of cscK metrics since openness is already established in [9].

Let us recall a conjecture made earlier by the first named author (c.f. [14]).

[020B]
Conjecture 1.1.

Let (M,[ω])(M,[\omega]) be any compact Kähler manifold without boundary. Suppose ωφ\omega_{\varphi} is a constant scalar curvature Kähler metric. If φ\varphi is uniformly bounded, then any higher derivative estimate of φ\varphi is also uniformly bounded.

It is worthwhile to give a brief review of the history of this subject and hopefully, this will make it self-evident why this conjecture is interesting. A special case of constant scalar curvature Kähler metric is the well known KE metric which has been the main focus of Kähler geometry since the inception of the celebrated Calabi conjecture on Kähler Einstein metrics in 1950s. In 1958, E. Calabi published the fundamental C3C^{3} estimate for Monge-Ampe`\grave{\text{e}}re equation [3] which later played a crucial role in Yau’s seminal resolution of Calabi conjecture [35] in 1976 when the first Chern class is either negative or zero (In negative case, T. Aubin has an independent proof) . This work of Yau is so influential that generations of experts in Kähler geometry afterwards largely followed the same route: Securing a C0C^{0} estimate first, then move on to obtain C2,C3C^{2},\;C^{3} estimates etc. In the case of positive first Chern class, G. Tian proved Calabi conjecture in 1989 [32] for Fano surfaces when the automorphism group is reductive. It is well known that there are obstructions to the existence of KE metrics in Fano manifolds; around 1980s, Yau proposed a conjecture which relates the existence of Kähler Einstein metrics to the stability of underlying tangent bundles. This conjecture was settled in 2012 through a series of work CDS [11] [12] [13] and we refer interested readers to this set of papers for further references in the subject of KE metrics. The proof of CDS’s work is itself quite involved as it sits at the intersection of several different subjects: algebraic geometry, several complex variables, geometry analysis and metric differential geometry etc.

To move beyond CDS’s work on Kähler Einstein metrics, one direction is the study of the existence problem of cscK metrics which satisfy a 4th order PDE. The following is a conjecture which is a refinement of Calabi’s original idea that every Kähler class must have its own best, canonical representatives.

[020C]
Conjecture 1.2 (Yau-Tian-Donaldson).

Let [ω]=C1​(L)[\omega]=C_{1}({L}) for some holomorphic line bundle LL on a Kähler manifold MM, then the underlying (M,L)(M,L) is K-stable if and only if there exists a constant scalar curvature Kähler metric in [ω][\omega].

One conspicuous and memorable feature of CDS’s proof is the heavy use of Cheeger-Colding theory on manifold with Ricci curvature bounded from below. The apriori bound on Ricci curvature for KE metrics make such an application of Cheeger Colding theory seamlessly smooth and effective. However, if we want to attack this general conjecture, there will be a dauntingly high wall to climb since there is no a priori bound on Ricci curvatue. Therefore, the entire Cheeger-Colding theory needs to be re-developed if it is at all feasible. On the other hand, there is a second, less visible but perhaps even more significant feature of CDS’s proof is: The whole proof is designed for constant scalar curvature Kähler metrics and the use of algebraic criteria and Cheeger Colding theory is to conclude that the a C0C^{0} bound holds for Kähler potential so that we can apply the apriori estimates for complex KE metrics developed by Calabi, Yau and others. Indeed, this is exactly how we make use of Cheeger Colding theory and stability condition in CDS’s proof to nail down a C0C^{0} estimate on potential. Unfortunately, such an estimate is missing in this generality for a 4th order fully nonlinear equation. Indeed, as noted by other famous authors in the subject as well, the difficulty permeates the cscK theory are two folds: one cannot use maximal principle from PDE point of view and one can not have much control of metric from the bound of the scalar curvature.

In this paper, we want to tackle this challenge and we prove

[020D]
Theorem 1.1.

If (M,ωφ)(M,\omega_{\varphi}) is a cscK metric, where ωφ=ω0+−1​∂∂¯​φ\omega_{\varphi}=\omega_{0}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}\varphi, then all higher derivatives of the Kähler potential φ\varphi can be estimated in terms of an upper bound of ∫Mlog⁡(ωφnω0n)​ωφn\int_{M}\log\big(\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{\omega_{0}^{n}}\big)\omega_{\varphi}^{n}.

As a consequence, we show that

[020E]
Corollary 1.1.

Let (M,ωφ)(M,\omega_{\varphi}) be as in above theorem, then all higher derivatives of φ\varphi can be estimated in terms of ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}.

The cscK metric equation can be re-written as a pair of coupled equations

(1.1) logdet(gα​β¯+φα​β¯)=F+logdet(gα​β¯),\displaystyle\log\det(g_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})=F+\log\det(g_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}),
(1.2) Δφ​F=−R¯+t​rφ​R​i​cg.\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}F=-\underline{R}+tr_{\varphi}Ric_{g}.

Here Δφ\Delta_{\varphi} denotes the Laplace operator defined by the Kähler form ωφ:\omega_{\varphi}:

ℋ={φ∈C∞​(M):ωφ:=−1​(gα​β¯+φα​β¯)​d​zα∧d​z¯β>0}.{\mathcal{H}}=\{\varphi\in C^{\infty}(M):\;\;\omega_{\varphi}:=\sqrt{-1}(g_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})dz_{\alpha}\wedge d\bar{z}_{\beta}>0\}.

The following proposition might be well known to experts (c.f. [9]).

[020F]
Proposition 1.2.

If 1C​ω0≤ωφ≤C​ω0\frac{1}{C}\omega_{0}\leq\omega_{\varphi}\leq C\omega_{0}, for some constant C>0C>0, then all higher derivatives can be estimated in terms of CC.

Following [9], Proposition 2.1, we outline some key arguments for this proposition: since gφg_{\varphi} is quasi-isometric, then Equation (1.2) is uniformly elliptic with a bounded right hand side. Therefore, by De Giorgi-Nash-Moser theory([21], Theorem 8.22), [F]Cα​(M,g)[F]_{C^{\alpha}(M,g)} is uniformly bounded for some 0<α<10<\alpha<1. Substituting this into Equation (1.1), it becomes a complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{\text{e}}re equation with CαC^{\alpha} bound on the right hand side. Following theory of Caffarelli, Evans-Krylov(see [34] for details on extension to complex setting), we know [φ]C2,α′​(M,g)[\varphi]_{C^{2,\alpha^{\prime}}(M,g)} is uniformly bounded, for each α′<α\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha. This means (1.2) is uniformly elliptic with coefficients in Cα′C^{\alpha^{\prime}}. Hence we may apply Schauder theory([21], Theorem 6.2) to conclude an estimate for ‖F‖2,α′||F||_{2,\alpha^{\prime}}. Now we can go back to (1.1). Differentiating the equation, we can conlude φ\varphi is bounded in C4,α′C^{4,\alpha^{\prime}}. Hence we may bootstrap this way and get estimates for all higher derivatives.

In this short argument, it is obvious that the crucial assumption is that the metric in question is quasi-isometric. The hard challenge is to prove a priori that the metric ωφ\omega_{\varphi} is quasic isometric. However, there is not much room for improvement at least locally, following the well known example of Pogorelov on real Monge-Ampe`\grave{\text{e}}re equation. In [23], W.Y. He adapted the construction of Pogorelov’s example to complex setting and obtained a complete solution to

detui​j¯=1\det u_{i\bar{j}}=1

in ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n} which is not C2.C^{2}.\; Thus, for this conjecture to be true, the global nature of compact Kähler manifold must come into play in a crucial way.

Theorem 1.1 can be expanded into a more detailed version. The constants CC in the theorem below can change from line to line. More generally, throughout this paper, the “C” without subscript may change from line to line, while if there is subscript, then it is some fixed constant.

[020G]
Theorem 1.2.

Suppose (M,ωφ)(M,\omega_{\varphi}) is a constant scalar curvature Kähler metric. Then the following statements are mutually equivalent:

  1. (1)

    There is a constant such that ∫Mlog⁡ωφnωn⋅ωφn<C;\int_{M}\;\log{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}\over\omega^{n}}\cdot\omega_{\varphi}^{n}<C;

  2. (2)

    There is a constant such that |φ|<C;|\varphi|<C;

  3. (3)

    There is a constant CC such that |∇φ|<C|\nabla\varphi|<C and log⁡ωφnωn≥−C\log{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}\over\omega^{n}}\geq-C;

  4. (4)

    There is a constant CC such that 1C<ωφnωn<C;\frac{1}{C}<{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}\over\omega^{n}}<C;

  5. (5)

    There is a constant CC such that n+Δ​φ<Cn+\Delta\varphi<C and ωφnω0n>1C\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{\omega_{0}^{n}}>\frac{1}{C};

  6. (6)

    All higher derivates of φ\varphi is uniformly bounded.

Some remarks are in order:

  1. (1)

    The strength of statement is roughly in increasing order. The equivalence of (1) and (6) gives Theorem 1.1.

  2. (2)

    From (5) to (6), this is exactly Proposition 1.1, since this assumption implies 1C′​ω0≤ωφ≤C′​ω0\frac{1}{C^{\prime}}\omega_{0}\leq\omega_{\varphi}\leq C^{\prime}\omega_{0}. All other estimates are new.

  3. (3)

    Here is the flow line of our proof:

    (1)⟹s​e​c​t​i​o​n​ 5(2)+(4)​and​(3)⟺s​e​c​t​i​o​n​ 2(4)⟹s​e​c​t​i​o​n​ 3(5)⟹s​e​c​t​i​o​n​ 4(6).(1)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle section\,5}}{{\Longrightarrow}}(2)+(4)\;\;{\rm and}\;\;(3)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle section\,2}}{{\Longleftrightarrow}}(4)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle section\,3}}{{\Longrightarrow}}(5)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle section\,4}}{{\Longrightarrow}}(6).
[020H]
Remark 1.3.

In Theorem 1.1 and the first part of Theorem 1.2, it is sufficient to assume that φ\varphi remains bounded under L1L^{1} geodesic distance, due to the fact that cscK metrics are minimizers of KK-energy. We will discuss this matter in more detail in our next paper of the series.

Now we present technical theorems which lead to this main theorem. Indeed, these technical theorems are interesting in its own right and may be used in other applications.

[020I]
Theorem 1.3.

(Corollary 5.2) Let φ\varphi be a smooth solution to (1.1), (1.2), then for any 1<p<∞1<p<\infty, there exists a constant CC, depending only on the background Kähler metric (M,g)(M,g), an upper bound of ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g}, and pp, such that

(1.3) ‖eF‖Lp​(d​v​o​lg)≤C,‖φ‖0≤C.||e^{F}||_{L^{p}(dvol_{g})}\leq C,\,\,||\varphi||_{0}\leq C.
[020J]
Theorem 1.4.

(Corollary 5.4)Let φ\varphi be a smooth solution to (1.1), (1.2), then there exists a constant CC, depending only on the background metric (M,g)(M,g) and an upper bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g}, such that

(1.4) eF≤C.e^{F}\leq C.
[020K]
Proposition 1.4.

(Proposition 2.1) Let φ\varphi be a smooth solution to (1.1), (1.2), then there exists a constant CC, depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, such that

(1.5) F≥−C.F\geq-C.
[020L]
Theorem 1.5.

(Theorem 2.2) Let φ\varphi be a smooth solution to (1.1), (1.2), then there exists a constant CC, depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and the background metric gg, such that

(1.6) |∇φ|2eF≤C.\frac{|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{e^{F}}\leq C.

We also show that one can estimate the upper bound of FF directly in terms of gradient bound of φ\varphi. This result is not directly needed for our main result, but can be of independent interest.

[020M]
Theorem 1.6.

(Theorem 2.1) Let φ\varphi be a smooth solution to (1.1) and (1.2), then there exists a constant CC, depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, and the backgroud metric gg, such that

(1.7) maxM⁡eFn≤C​maxM​|∇φ|2.\max_{M}e^{\frac{F}{n}}\leq C\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}.

For second order estimate, Chen-He[14] establish an a priori bound on n+Δ​φn+\Delta\varphi in terms of |∇F|Lp​(p>2​n)|\nabla F|_{L^{p}}(p>2n) via integral estimate, in absense of (1.2). Inspired by this paper [14] and utilizing the additional equation (1.2), we are able to obtain a W2,pW^{2,p} estimate for any p>0p>0, using only ‖F‖0||F||_{0}. Theorem 1.5 is used essentially in this estimate.

[020N]
Theorem 1.7.

(Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.2) Let φ\varphi be a smooth solution to (1.1), (1.2), then for any 1<p<∞1<p<\infty, there exists a constant α⁡(p)>0\alpha(p)>0, depending only on pp, and another constant CC, depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, the background metric gg, and pp, such that

(1.8) ∫Me−α⁡(p)​F​(n+Δ​φ)p≤C.\int_{M}e^{-\alpha(p)F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{p}\leq C.

In particular, ‖n+Δ​φ‖Lp​(d​v​o​lg)≤C′||n+\Delta\varphi||_{L^{p}(dvol_{g})}\leq C^{\prime}, where C′C^{\prime} has the same dependence as CC in this theorem, but additionally on ‖F‖0||F||_{0}.

If we can prove an upper bound for FF, then the following theorem becomes very interesting.

[020P]
Theorem 1.8.

(Proposition 4.2) Let φ\varphi be a smooth solution to (1.1), (1.2). Then there exists pn>1p_{n}>1, depending only on nn, and a constant CC, depending on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, ‖n+Δ​φ‖Lpn​(d​v​o​lg)||n+\Delta\varphi||_{L^{p_{n}}(dvol_{g})}, and the background metric gg, such that

(1.9) n+Δ​φ≤C.n+\Delta\varphi\leq C.

It is interesting to compare this result with second derivative estimates for complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{e}re equations. In [26], the authors obtained C2,αC^{2,\alpha} estimates for complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{e}re equation, depending on C1,βC^{1,\beta} bound of the solution (with β\beta close enough to 1) and CαC^{\alpha} bound of the right hand side. In [23], the authors obtained W3,pW^{3,p} bound of solution to complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{e}re depending only on C0C^{0} bound of the solution and W1,pW^{1,p} bound of right hand side for p>2​np>2n. In this result, we are not assuming any regularity of the right hand side eFe^{F}, but assumes quite strong bound (W2,pW^{2,p} for pp large) as a price to pay, and the second equation (6.2) needs to be used in an essential way.

Theorem 1.8 is reminiscent to a renowned problem in ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n} which goes back to S. T. Yau, E. Calabi: whether global solution of Calabi Yau metric in ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n} must be Euclidean metric or not? This problem is disapproved by a nontrivial construction of Calabi Yau metric in ℂ2\mathbb{C}^{2} by C. LeBrun. Perhaps one need to strengthen the assumption by assuming it is asymptotically Euclidean at ∞.\infty.\; This is made known to be true by G. Tian in dimension n=2n=2\> and conjectured to be true in all dimensions. While we prepare this paper, it is now known through a surprising result of Y. Li in dimension 3 [27] and then Conlon-Rochon [16], G. Szekelyhidi [31] in all dimensions that this fails in general. This exciting new development makes statement like Corollary 1.5 below more interesting. This corollary offers a different point of view: If we control asymptotical growth of the underlying metrics, then the rigidity result still hold for scalar flat Kähler metrics (in particular Calabi Yau metrics) in ℂn.\mathbb{C}^{n}.\;

[020Q]
Corollary 1.5.

Let uu be a global smooth pluri-subharmonic function such that −1​∂∂¯​u\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}u defines a scalar flat metric on ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n}. If for some p>3​n​(n−1)p>3n(n-1), we have

lim infr→∞1r2​n​∫Br​(0)⊂ℂn(Δ​u)p+(∑k1uk​k¯)p<∞,\displaystyle\liminf_{r\rightarrow\infty}\;{1\over r^{2n}}\displaystyle\int_{B_{r}(0)\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}}\;(\Delta u)^{p}+\big(\sum_{k}\frac{1}{u_{k\bar{k}}}\big)^{p}<\infty,

then the Levi Hessian of uu is constant.

We will prove this corollary in section 6, using a similar argument as Proposition 6.1 We observe that this theorem covers the well-known Calabi Yau metric equation

detui​j¯=1\det u_{i\bar{j}}=1

as a special case. One interesting question is, what is the smallest number pp for which this corollary still holds? In section 6, we also show that when n=2n=2, for a solution φ\varphi of cscK in a domain of ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n}, if |∇φ||\nabla\varphi| is locally bounded, then the volume ratio ωφnωn{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}\over\omega^{n}} is also bounded from above locally. It is not clear to us if this estimate can be generalized to higher dimensions.

Finally we would like to explain the organization of this paper:

In section 2, we prove Proposition 1.4, Theorem 1.5 and Theorem 1.6.

In section 3, we prove Theorem 1.7 by iteration, which is a crucial step towards the main result.

In section 4, we use iteration again to improve LpL^{p} bound of n+Δ​φn+\Delta\varphi for p<∞p<\infty to an L∞L^{\infty} bound of n+Δ​φn+\Delta\varphi, proving Theorem 1.8. This estimate requires a bound for ‖n+Δ​φ‖Lp||n+\Delta\varphi||_{L^{p}} for some p>pnp>p_{n} 11 1 Here pn≤(3​n−3)​(4​n+1)p_{n}\leq(3n-3)(4n+1). But this most likely is not sharp. , depending on ‖F‖0||F||_{0}. The key ingredient is a calculation for Δφ​(|∇φF|2)\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla_{\varphi}F|^{2}). Combining the results in section 2, 3, 4 as well as Proposition 2.1 gives estimate for all higher derivatives in terms of ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and ‖F‖0||F||_{0}.

In Section 2-4, we always assume |φ||\varphi| is a priori bounded. This assumption is removed in Section 5 where we prove Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4. From these two results, we get estimate for ‖F‖0||F||_{0} and ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} depending only on entropy bound of FF. The key ingredient is the use of α\alpha-invariant and the construction of a new test function. On the other hand, if we start with a bound for ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, and use the convexity of KK-energy along C1,1C^{1,1} geodesics, it is relatively easy to get an entropy bound of FF, hence all higher estimates.

In section 6, we obtain some interior estimates for cscK in a bounded domain of ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n}. Such estimates are not directly needed for our main results but may be of independent interest.

Acknowledgment In the Fall of 1997, Sir Simon invited the first named author to join him in exploring the space of Kähler potentials, and Sir Simon has been remarkably generous about sharing his time and ideas ever since. It is therefore a deep pleasure to dedicate this paper to Sir Simon Donaldson, in celebration of his 60th birthday, and in acknowledgment of the far-reaching influence of his profound mathematical ideas, which have changed the landscape of mathematics so much.

[020R]

2. The volume ratio ωφnωn{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}\over\omega^{n}} and C1C^{1} bound on Kähler potential

The main theorem in this section is to prove that the first derivative of φ\varphi is pointwisely controlled by volume ratio eFe^{F} from above, assuming a bound for ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}. Conversely, the bound for ‖∇φ‖0||\nabla\varphi||_{0} can in turn control eF.e^{F}.\; However, this control is much weaker since it is of global nature.

First we show that a C0C^{0} bound for φ\varphi implies a lower bound for FF.

[020S]
Proposition 2.1.

Let (φ,F)(\varphi,F) be smooth solutions to cscK, then there exists a positive constant C2C_{2} depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and the upper bound of the Ricci form of the background metric gg, such that F≥−C2F\geq-C_{2}.

This proposition first appeared in [24]. However, for the convenience of the reader, we include a proof here.

[020T]
Proof.

This step is relatively easy. Let p∈Mp\in M, we may choose a local normal coordinate in a neighborhood of pp, such that

(2.1) gi​j¯​(p)=δi​j,∇gi​j¯​(p)=0,and​φi​j¯​(p)=φi​i¯​(p)​δi​j.g_{i\bar{j}}(p)=\delta_{ij},\;\;\nabla g_{i\bar{j}}(p)=0,\;\;{\rm and}\;\;\varphi_{i\bar{j}}(p)=\varphi_{i\bar{i}}(p)\delta_{ij}.

In this paper, we will always work under this coordinate unless specified otherwise. Choose the constant C2.1C_{2.1} to be C2.1=2​maxM​Ri​i¯+2​|R¯|n+1C_{2.1}=2\displaystyle\max_{M}R_{i\bar{i}}+\frac{2|\underline{R}|}{n}+1. Under this coordinate, we can calculate:

(2.2) Δφ​(F+C2.1​φ)=−R¯+Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯+C2.1​φi​i¯1+φi​i¯=−R¯+C2.1​n−C2.1−Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯≤−R¯+C2.1​n−n​C2.12​e−Fn≤2​C2.1​n−n​C2.12​e−Fn.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(F+C_{2.1}\varphi)&=-\underline{R}+\frac{R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+C_{2.1}\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &=-\underline{R}+C_{2.1}n-\frac{C_{2.1}-R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\leq-\underline{R}+C_{2.1}n-\frac{nC_{2.1}}{2}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}\\ &\leq 2C_{2.1}n-\frac{nC_{2.1}}{2}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}.\end{split}

In the second line above, we used the arithemetic-geometric inequality:

1n​∑i11+φi​i¯≥Πi​(1+φi​i¯)−1n=e−Fn.\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\geq\Pi_{i}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{-\frac{1}{n}}=e^{-\frac{F}{n}}.

Now let p0p_{0} be such that the function F+C2.1​φF+C_{2.1}\varphi achieves minimum at p0p_{0}, then from (2.2), we see

(2.3) 0≤2​C2.1​n−n​C2.12​e−Fn​(p0).0\leq 2C_{2.1}n-\frac{nC_{2.1}}{2}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}(p_{0}).

This gives a lower bound for FF, depending only on C0C^{0} bound for φ\varphi.

∎

Next we move on to estimate the upper bound of FF in terms of maxM⁡|∇φ|\displaystyle\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|.

[020U]
Theorem 2.1.

Let (φ,F)(\varphi,F) be smooth solutions to cscK, then there exists a constant C2.2C_{2.2}, depending only on ‖∇φ‖0||\nabla\varphi||_{0} and lower bound of bisectional cruvature of the background metric gg, such that F≤C2.2F\leq C_{2.2}.

[020V]
Proof.

The argument uses maximum principle again. This time we will calculate Δφ​(eF−λ​φ​(K+|∇φ|2))\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})) where λ,K>0\lambda,K>0 are constants to be determined later. We choose a normal coordinate (equation (2.1)) and do the following calculations. We have

(2.4) Δφ​(eF−λ​φ​(K+|∇φ|2))\displaystyle\qquad\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})) =\displaystyle= Δφ​(eF−λ​φ)​(K+|∇φ|2)+eF−λ​φ​Δφ​(K+|∇φ|2)\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi})(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})+e^{F-\lambda\varphi}\Delta_{\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})
+eF−λ​φ⋅(Fi−λ​φi)​(|∇φ|2)i¯+(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​(|∇φ|2)i1+φi​i¯.\displaystyle+e^{F-\lambda\varphi}\cdot\frac{(F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{\bar{i}}+(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{i}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.

We can first calculate:

(2.5) Δφ​(eF−λ​φ)=eF−C​φ​|Fi−λ​φi|21+φi​i¯+eF−λ​φ​(Δφ​F−λ​φi​i¯1+φi​i¯)=eF−λ​φ​|Fi−λ​φi|21+φi​i¯+eF−λ​φ​(−R¯−λ​n+λ+Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi})&=e^{F-C\varphi}\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(\Delta_{\varphi}F-\frac{\lambda\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}})\\ &=e^{F-\lambda\varphi}\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\frac{\lambda+R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}).\end{split}

By differentiating equation (1.1) in zαz_{\alpha} direction, we obtain

(2.6) ∑iφi​i¯​α1+φi​i¯=Fα​and​∑iφi​i¯​α¯1+φi​i¯=Fα¯.\displaystyle\sum_{i}\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}\alpha}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}=F_{\alpha}\;\;{\rm and}\;\;\displaystyle\sum_{i}\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}\bar{\alpha}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}=F_{\bar{\alpha}}.

Then we calculate

(2.7) Δφ​(|∇φ|2)=Rα​β¯​i​i¯​φα​φβ¯1+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+φα​φα¯​i​i¯+φα¯​φα​i​i¯1+φi​i¯≥−C2.21​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+φα​Fα¯+φα¯​Fα=−C2.21​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+φα​(Fα¯−λ​φα¯)+φα¯​(Fα−λ​φα)+2​λ​|φα|2≥−C2.21​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯−ε⁡(n+Δ​φ)−|Fα−λ​φα|2​|φα|2ε⁡(1+φα​α¯)+2​λ​|φα|2.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})&=\frac{R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}i\bar{i}}\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\beta}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi^{2}_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}i\bar{i}}+\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &\geq-\frac{C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi^{2}_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\varphi_{\alpha}F_{\bar{\alpha}}+\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}F_{\alpha}\\ &=-\frac{C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi^{2}_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\varphi_{\alpha}(F_{\bar{\alpha}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}})+\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}(F_{\alpha}-\lambda\varphi_{\alpha})+2\lambda|\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}\\ &\geq-\frac{C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi^{2}_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-\varepsilon(n+\Delta\varphi)-\frac{|F_{\alpha}-\lambda\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}|\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}}{\varepsilon(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})}+2\lambda|\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}.\end{split}

Here C2.21C_{2.21} depends only on lower bound of bisectional curvature of gg.

For the last term in (2.4), we estimate in the following way:

(2.8) |(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​(|∇φ|2)i|1+φi​i¯\displaystyle\frac{|(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{i}|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
=\displaystyle= |(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​(φα​φα¯​i+φα¯​φα​i)|1+φi​i¯\displaystyle\frac{|(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})(\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}i}+\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha i})|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
≤\displaystyle\leq |(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​φi​φi​i¯|1+φi​i¯+|(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​φα¯​φα​i|1+φi​i¯\displaystyle\frac{|(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})\varphi_{i}\varphi_{i\bar{i}}|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha i}|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
≤\displaystyle\leq |Fi−λ​φi|2​|φi|22​ε​(1+φi​i¯)+|Fi−λ​φi|2​|φα|22​ε​(1+φi​i¯)+ε​φi​i¯22​(1+φi​i¯)+ε​|φi​α|22​(1+φi​i¯).\displaystyle\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{2\varepsilon(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}+\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}}{2\varepsilon(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}+\frac{\varepsilon\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{2(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}+\frac{\varepsilon|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{2(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}.

The other conjugate term satisfies the same estimate as above. Combining above calculations, we obtain:

(2.9) Δφ​(eF−λ​φ​(K+|∇φ|2))eF−λ​φ\displaystyle\frac{\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}))}{e^{F-\lambda\varphi}}
≥\displaystyle\geq (K+|∇φ|2−3​ε−1​|∇φ|2)​|Fi−λ​φi|21+φi​i¯\displaystyle\big(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}-3\varepsilon^{-1}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\big)\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
+(λ+Ri​i¯)​(K+|∇φ|2)−C2.21​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+(1−ε)​φi​i¯21+φi​i¯−ε⁡(n+Δ​φ)\displaystyle\qquad\qquad+\frac{(\lambda+R_{i\bar{i}})(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{(1-\varepsilon)\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-\varepsilon(n+\Delta\varphi)
+|φi​α|2​(1−ε)1+φi​i¯+(−R¯−λ​n)​(K+|∇φ|2).\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}(1-\varepsilon)}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+(-\underline{R}-\lambda n)(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}).

Now it’s time to choose the constants ε\varepsilon, λ\lambda, and KK appearing above.

First we choose ε=14\varepsilon=\frac{1}{4}. With this choice, we have

(2.10) ∑i(1−ε)​φi​i¯21+φi​i¯−ε⁡(n+Δ​φ)=34​(n+Δ​φ)−3​n2+34​∑i11+φi​i¯−14​(1+φi​i¯)≥12​(n+Δ​φ)−3​n2.\begin{split}\sum_{i}\frac{(1-\varepsilon)\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-\varepsilon(n+\Delta\varphi)&=\frac{3}{4}(n+\Delta\varphi)-\frac{3n}{2}+\frac{3}{4}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-\frac{1}{4}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})\\ &\geq\frac{1}{2}(n+\Delta\varphi)-\frac{3n}{2}.\end{split}

Then we choose λ\lambda so large that λ+Ri​i¯>1\lambda+R_{i\bar{i}}>1. Finally, we choose KK so large that

(2.11) K>C2.21​maxM​|∇φ|2\displaystyle K>C_{2.21}\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}
(2.12) K>3​ε−1​maxM​|∇φ|2=12​maxM​|∇φ|2.\displaystyle K>3\varepsilon^{-1}\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}=12\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}.

With above choices for λ\lambda and KK, we have

(2.13) (λ+Ri​i¯)​(K+|∇φ|2)−C2.21​|∇φ|2≥K−C2.21​|∇φ|2>0.(\lambda+R_{i\bar{i}})(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\geq K-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}>0.

and also

(2.14) K−3​ε−1​|∇φ|2>0.K-3\varepsilon^{-1}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}>0.

Hence we conclude from (2.9) that

(2.15) Δφ​(eF−λ​φ​(K+|∇φ|2))≥eF−λ​φ​(−(|R¯|+λ​n)​(K+maxM⁡|∇φ|2)−C2.22+14​(n+Δ​φ)).\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}))\geq e^{F-\lambda\varphi}\big(-(|\underline{R}|+\lambda n)(K+\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2})-C_{2.22}+\frac{1}{4}(n+\Delta\varphi)\big).

Denote v=eF−C​φ​(K+|∇φ|2)v=e^{F-C\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}), it is enough to show vv has an upper bound. we see from (2.15) that there exists constants C2.23>0C_{2.23}>0, C2.24>0C_{2.24}>0, possibly depending on maxM⁡|∇φ|2\displaystyle\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}, such that

(2.16) Δφ​(v)≥v⁡(−C2.23+1C2.24​(n+Δ​φ)).\Delta_{\varphi}(v)\geq v(-C_{2.23}+\frac{1}{C_{2.24}}(n+\Delta\varphi)).

Here we notice that n+Δ​φ≥n​eFnn+\Delta\varphi\geq ne^{\frac{F}{n}}. Hence we obtain from (2.16) that

(2.17) Δφ​(v)≥v⁡(−C2.23+1C2.24​eFn).\Delta_{\varphi}(v)\geq v(-C_{2.23}+\frac{1}{C_{2.24}}e^{\frac{F}{n}}).

Let the maximum of vv be achieved at point pp, then we know −C2.23+eFn​(p)C2.24≤0-C_{2.23}+\frac{e^{\frac{F}{n}(p)}}{C_{2.24}}\leq 0. This gives an upper bound of FF at p0p_{0}, hence an upper bound for vv, where this bound depends on maxM⁡|∇φ|\displaystyle\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|. ∎

Conversely, we have the following key estimate, which will be needed when we do the W2,pW^{2,p} estimates of φ\varphi.

[020W]
Theorem 2.2.

There exists a constant C2.3C_{2.3}, depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, lower bound of bisectional curvature and upper bound of Ricci form of gg, such that

|∇φ|2eF≤C2.3.{{|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}\over e^{F}}\leq C_{2.3}.
[020X]
Proof.

We will consider Δφ​(e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2​(|∇φ|2+K))\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)). Here λ>0\lambda>0, K>0K>0 are constants to be determined below. Then we have

(2.18) Δφ​(e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2​(|∇φ|2+K))\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))
=\displaystyle= Δφ​(e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2)​(|∇φ|2+K)+e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2​Δφ​(|∇φ|2)\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)+e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})
+2​e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ21+φi​i¯​R​e​((−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi)​(|∇φ|2)i¯).\displaystyle\qquad\qquad+\frac{2e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}Re\big((-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{\bar{i}}\big).

For simplicity of notation, set

A⁡(F,φ)=−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2.A(F,\varphi)=-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}.

Similar as before, we may calculate:

(2.19) Δφ​(eA⁡(F,φ))\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A(F,\varphi)})
=\displaystyle= eA​|−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+eA​(−Δφ​(F+λ​φ)+φ​Δφ​φ)+eA​|φi|21+φi​i¯\displaystyle e^{A}\frac{|-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+e^{A}\big(-\Delta_{\varphi}(F+\lambda\varphi)+\varphi\Delta_{\varphi}\varphi\big)+e^{A}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
=\displaystyle= eA​|−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+eA​(R¯−λ​n+n​φ+∑iλ−Ri​i¯−φ1+φi​i¯)+eA​|φi|21+φi​i¯.\displaystyle e^{A}\frac{|-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+e^{A}\bigg(\underline{R}-\lambda n+n\varphi+\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}-\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\bigg)+\frac{e^{A}|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.

Recall the calculation in (2.7):

(2.20) Δφ​(|∇φ|2)=Ri​i¯​α​β¯​φα​φβ¯1+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+Fα¯​φα+Fα​φα¯≥−C2.21|∇φ|∑i2⁡11+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+(−2​λ+2​φ)​|∇φ|2+2​R​e​((Fα+λ​φα−φ​φα)​φα¯).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})&=\frac{R_{i\bar{i}\alpha\bar{\beta}}\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\beta}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+F_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha}+F_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\\ &\geq-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &+(-2\lambda+2\varphi)|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+2Re\big((F_{\alpha}+\lambda\varphi_{\alpha}-\varphi\varphi_{\alpha})\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\big).\end{split}

Again C2.21C_{2.21} depends only on curvature bound of gg. Also

(|∇φ|2)i¯=φα​φα¯​i¯+φi¯​φi​i¯,(|∇φ|2)i=φα¯​φα​i+φi​φi​i¯.(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{\bar{i}}=\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{i}}+\varphi_{\bar{i}}\varphi_{i\bar{i}},\,\,(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{i}=\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha i}+\varphi_{i}\varphi_{i\bar{i}}.

Hence if we plug in (2.19) and (2.20) back to (2.18), we obtain:

(2.21) Δφ​(eA​(|∇φ|2+K))​e−A≥|∇φ(F+λ​φ)−φ​∇φφ|2​(|∇φ|2+K)+|∇φφ|2​(|∇φ|2+K)+(R¯−λ​n+n​φ+∑iλ−Ri​i¯−φ1+φi​i¯)​(|∇φ|2+K)+−C2.21​|∇φ|2+|φi​α|2+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+(−2​λ+2​φ)​|∇φ|2+2​R​e​((Fα+λ​φα−φ​φα)​φα¯)+2​R​e​((−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi)​(φα​φα¯​i¯+φi¯​φi​i¯))1+φi​i¯.\begin{split}&\quad\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))e^{-A}\\ &\geq|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\lambda\varphi)-\varphi\nabla_{\varphi}\varphi|^{2}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)+|\nabla_{\varphi}\varphi|^{2}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)\\ &+\big(\underline{R}-\lambda n+n\varphi+\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}-\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\big)(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)+\frac{-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &+(-2\lambda+2\varphi)|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+2Re\big((F_{\alpha}+\lambda\varphi_{\alpha}-\varphi\varphi_{\alpha})\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\big)\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{2Re\big((-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i})(\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{i}}+\varphi_{\bar{i}}\varphi_{i\bar{i}})\big)}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}

We notice the following complete square in the above sum:

(2.22) 11+φi​i¯​|φi​α−(Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi)​φα|2=|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+2​R​e​((−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi)​φα​φα¯​i¯)1+φi​i¯+|−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi|2​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯.\begin{split}&\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}|\varphi_{i\alpha}-\big(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i}\big)\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}\\ &=\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{2Re\big((-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{i}}\big)}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}

We will drop this complete square in the following. Next we observe a crucial cancellation, which is the key point of this argument. We look at the last two terms in (2.21) and observe:

(2.23) (Fα+λ​φα−φ​φα)​φα¯+(−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi)​φi¯​φi​i¯1+φi​i¯=(Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi)​φi¯1+φi​i¯.(F_{\alpha}+\lambda\varphi_{\alpha}-\varphi\varphi_{\alpha})\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}+\frac{(-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\bar{i}}\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}=\frac{(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.

Hence we have

(2.24) Δφ​(eA​(|∇φ|2+K))​e−A≥K​|−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+|φi|2​(|∇φ|2+K)1+φi​i¯+∑iλ−Ri​i¯−φ1+φi​i¯(|∇φ|2+K)+(R¯−λn+nφ)(|∇φ|2+K)−C2.21|∇φ|∑i2⁡11+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+(−2​λ+2​φ)​|∇φ|2+2​R​e​((Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi)​φi¯1+φi​i¯).\begin{split}&\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))e^{-A}\geq K\frac{|-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &+\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}-\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)+\bigg(\underline{R}-\lambda n+n\varphi\bigg)(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)\\ &-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+(-2\lambda+2\varphi)|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+2Re\bigg(\frac{(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\bigg).\end{split}

Now we make the choices of λ\lambda, KK. We choose λ=10​(supM|Ri​i¯|+‖φ‖0+C2.21+1)\lambda=10(\sup_{M}|R_{i\bar{i}}|+||\varphi||_{0}+C_{2.21}+1) and K=10K=10. With this choice, we now estimate the terms in (2.24), with various constants CiC_{i} which depends only on the curvature bound of gg and ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}.

(2.25) (R¯−λ​n+n​φ)​(|∇φ|2+K)≥−C2.31​(|∇φ|2+1).\big(\underline{R}-\lambda n+n\varphi\big)(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)\geq-C_{2.31}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+1).
(2.26) (−2​λ+2​φ)​|∇φ|2≥−C2.32​|∇φ|2.(-2\lambda+2\varphi)|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\geq-C_{2.32}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}.
(2.27) |(Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi)​φi¯|1+φi​i¯≤12​|Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+12​|φi|21+φi​i¯≤12​|Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+12​|∇φ|2​∑i11+φi​i¯.\begin{split}\frac{|(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\bar{i}}|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}&\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{|F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{|F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{1}{2}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}
(2.28) ∑iλ−Ri​i¯−φ1+φi​i¯​(|∇φ|2+K)−C2.21​|∇φ|2​∑i11+φi​i¯≥10|∇φ|∑i2⁡11+φi​i¯.\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}-\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\geq 10|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.
(2.29) φi​i¯21+φi​i¯≥0.\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\geq 0.

Combining all these estimates, we obtain from (2.24) that

(2.30) Δφ​(eA​(|∇φ|2+K))≥eA​(|φi|2​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+9​|∇φ|2​∑i11+φi​i¯−C2.33​(|∇φ|2+1)).\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))\geq e^{A}\big(\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+9|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-C_{2.33}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+1)\big).

Here C2.33C_{2.33} depends only on curvature bound of gg and ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}. Using Young’s inequality, we have,

|∇φ|2n​e−Fn≤∑i|φi|2n(1+φi​i¯)1n⋅(1+φi​i¯)1n​e−Fn≤1n​∑i|φi|21+φi​i¯+n−1n​∑i(1+φi​i¯)1n−1​e−Fn−1≤(n−1)​(|φi|21+φi​i¯+1n​∑i(1+φi​i¯)1n−1​e−Fn−1)≤(n−1)​(|φi|21+φi​i¯+(n+Δ​φ)1n−1​e−Fn−1)≤(n−1)​(|φi|21+φi​i¯+∑i11+φi​i¯).\begin{split}|\nabla\varphi|^{\frac{2}{n}}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}&\leq\sum_{i}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{\frac{2}{n}}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{1}{n}}}\cdot(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{1}{n}}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}\\ &\leq\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{n-1}{n}\sum_{i}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{1}{n-1}}e^{-\frac{F}{n-1}}\\ &\leq(n-1)\big(\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{1}{n-1}}e^{-\frac{F}{n-1}}\big)\\ &\leq(n-1)\big(\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{1}{n-1}}e^{-\frac{F}{n-1}}\big)\\ &\leq(n-1)\big(\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\big).\end{split}

Thus,

|φi|2​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+|∇φ|2​∑i11+φi​i¯≥1n−1​|∇φ|2+2n​e−Fn.\begin{split}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}&\geq\frac{1}{n-1}|\nabla\varphi|^{2+\frac{2}{n}}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}.\end{split}

Hence we get from (2.30) that

(2.31) Δφ​(eA​(|∇φ|2+K))≥e−C​φ+12​φ2​(e−(1+1n)​F​|∇φ|2+2n−C2.33​e−F​|∇φ|2−C2.33​e−F)=e−C​φ+12​φ2​((e−F​|∇φ|2)1+1n−C2.33​e−F​|∇φ|2−C2.33​e−F).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))&\geq e^{-C\varphi+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}\big(e^{-(1+\frac{1}{n})F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2+\frac{2}{n}}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}\big)\\ &=e^{-C\varphi+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}\big((e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2})^{1+\frac{1}{n}}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}\big).\end{split}

Suppose that the function e−(F+C​φ)+12​φ2​(|∇φ|2+K)e^{-(F+C\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K) achieves maximum at pp. Then at point pp, we have

(2.32) 0≥(e−F​|∇φ|2)1+1n−C2.33​e−F​|∇φ|2−C2.33​e−F.0\geq(e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2})^{1+\frac{1}{n}}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}.

Recall Proposition 2.1 gives an estimate for e−Fe^{-F} which depends only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and the curvature bound of gg. Therefore, we get a bound for e−F​|∇φ|2​(p)e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}(p) with the same dependence. Hence we have a bound for e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2​(|∇φ|2+K)​(p)e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)(p), with the dependence as stated in the theorem.

But this function achieves maximum at pp, so we are done. ∎

[020Y]

3. The volume ratio ωφnω0n\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{\omega_{0}^{n}} and W2,pW^{2,p} bound on Kähler potential

In this section, we prove

[020Z]
Theorem 3.1.

For any p>0p>0, there exist constants α⁡(p)>0\alpha(p)>0, C⁡(p)>0C(p)>0, so that

(3.1) ∫Me−α⁡(p)​F​(n+Δ​φ)p​𝑑v​o​lg≤C⁡(p).\int_{M}e^{-\alpha(p)F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{p}dvol_{g}\leq C(p).

Here α⁡(p)\alpha(p) depends only on pp(can be explicitly calculated). The constant CpC_{p} depends only on pp, ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, the upper bound of Ricci form, lower bound of the bisectional curvature, and volume of gg.

[0210]
Proof.

One start by calculating:

(3.2) Δφ​(e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(n+CLOSECLOSEOPENOPENΔ​φ))=Δφ​(e−α⁡(F+λ​φ))​(n+Δ​φ)+e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​Δφ​(n+Δ​φ)+e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(−α)​(Fi+λ​φi)​(Δ​φ)i¯+(Fi¯+λ​φi¯)​(Δ​φ)i1+φi​i¯.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(n+&\Delta\varphi))=\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)})(n+\Delta\varphi)+e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}\Delta_{\varphi}(n+\Delta\varphi)\\ &+e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(-\alpha)\frac{(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i})(\Delta\varphi)_{\bar{i}}+(F_{\bar{i}}+\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})(\Delta\varphi)_{i}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}

If we choose λ>2​supR​i​c\lambda>2\sup Ric, then

(3.3) Δφ(e−α⁡(F+λ​φ))=α2​|Fi+λ​φi|21+φi​i¯​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)+α​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(R¯−λ​n+∑iλ−Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯)≥α2​|Fi+λ​φi|21+φi​i¯​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)+α​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(R¯−λ​n)+λ​α2​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​∑i11+φi​i¯.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}&(e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)})=\frac{\alpha^{2}|F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}+\alpha e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(\underline{R}-\lambda n+\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}})\\ &\geq\frac{\alpha^{2}|F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}+\alpha e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(\underline{R}-\lambda n)+\frac{\lambda\alpha}{2}e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}

For the term Δφ​(n+Δ​φ)\Delta_{\varphi}(n+\Delta\varphi), we choose a normal coordinate (c.f. equation (2.1)) and then follow Yau’s calculation[35]. First, note that

(3.4) Δφ​(n+Δ​φ)=11+φk​k¯​(gi​j¯​φi​j¯)k​k¯=Ri​i¯​k​k¯​φi​i¯1+φk​k¯+φk​k¯​i​i¯1+φk​k¯.\Delta_{\varphi}(n+\Delta\varphi)=\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}}}\bigg(g^{i\bar{j}}\varphi_{i\bar{j}}\bigg)_{k\bar{k}}=\frac{R_{i\bar{i}k\bar{k}}\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}}}+\frac{\varphi_{k\bar{k}i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}}}.

We wish to represent the 44-th derivative of φ\varphi in terms of FF. For this we take equation (1.1) and differentiate it twice in ziz_{i}, zi¯z_{\bar{i}} and then sum over i=1,2⋯n.i=1,2\cdots n.\; We obtain:

(3.5) φk​k¯​i​i¯1+φk​k¯−Rk​k¯​i​i¯1+φk​k¯−|φk​β¯​i|2(1+φk​k¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)=Fi​i¯−Ri​i¯.\frac{\varphi_{k\bar{k}i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}}}-\frac{R_{k\bar{k}i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}}}-\frac{|\varphi_{k\bar{\beta}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}=F_{i\bar{i}}-R_{i\bar{i}}.

Hence

(3.6) Δφ​(nCLOSEOPEN+Δ​φ)=Rk​k¯​i​i¯​(1+φk​k¯)1+φi​i¯+|φp​q¯​i|2(1+φp​p¯)​(1+φq​q¯)+Δ​F−R≥−C3.1(n+Δφ)∑i11+φi​i¯+|φp​q¯​i|2(1+φp​p¯)​(1+φq​q¯)+ΔF−R.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(n&+\Delta\varphi)=\frac{R_{k\bar{k}i\bar{i}}(1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}})}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{p\bar{q}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{p\bar{p}})(1+\varphi_{q\bar{q}})}+\Delta F-R\\ &\geq-C_{3.1}(n+\Delta\varphi)\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{p\bar{q}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{p\bar{p}})(1+\varphi_{q\bar{q}})}+\Delta F-R.\end{split}

Here C3.1C_{3.1} depends only on curvature bound of gg and RR is the scalar curvature of the background metric gg. Plug in to equation (3.2) and we get

(3.7) Δφ(e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(n+Δ​φ))≥e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(λ​α2−C3.1)​(n+Δ​φ)​∑i11+φi​i¯+α​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(R¯−λ​n)​(n+Δ​φ)+e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(Δ​F−R).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}&(e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(n+\Delta\varphi))\geq e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(\frac{\lambda\alpha}{2}-C_{3.1})(n+\Delta\varphi)\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &+\alpha e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(\underline{R}-\lambda n)(n+\Delta\varphi)+e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(\Delta F-R).\end{split}

Here we already drop the term:

α2​|Fi+λ​φi|21+φi​i¯​(n+Δ​φ)+(−α)​(Fi+λ​φi)​(Δ​φ)i¯+(Fi¯+λ​φi¯)​(Δ​φ)i1+φi​i¯+|φp​q¯​i|2(1+φp​p¯)​(1+φq​q¯)≥α2​|Fi+λ​φi|21+φi​i¯​(n+Δ​φ)−2​α​R​e​((Fi+λ​φi)​(Δ​φ)i¯1+φi​i¯)+|(Δ​φ)i|2(n+Δ​φ)​(1+φi​i¯)=n+Δ​φ1+φi​i¯​|α⁡(Fi+λ​φi)−(Δ​φ)in+Δ​φ|2≥0.\begin{split}&\frac{\alpha^{2}|F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}(n+\Delta\varphi)+(-\alpha)\frac{(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i})(\Delta\varphi)_{\bar{i}}+(F_{\bar{i}}+\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})(\Delta\varphi)_{i}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{p\bar{q}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{p\bar{p}})(1+\varphi_{q\bar{q}})}\\ \quad\geq&\frac{\alpha^{2}|F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}(n+\Delta\varphi)-2\alpha Re\bigg(\frac{(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i})(\Delta\varphi)_{\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\bigg)+\frac{|(\Delta\varphi)_{i}|^{2}}{(n+\Delta\varphi)(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}\\ =&\frac{n+\Delta\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}|\alpha(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i})-\frac{(\Delta\varphi)_{i}}{n+\Delta\varphi}|^{2}\geq 0.\end{split}

From the first line to second line in the above, we observed that

|(Δ​φ)i|21+φi​i¯=|∑pφp​p¯​i|21+φi​i¯≤|φp​p¯​i|2​(n+Δ​φ)(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φp​p¯)≤|φp​q¯​i|2​(n+Δ​φ)(1+φp​p¯)​(1+φq​q¯).\frac{|(\Delta\varphi)_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}=\frac{|\sum_{p}\varphi_{p\bar{p}i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\leq\frac{|\varphi_{p\bar{p}i}|^{2}(n+\Delta\varphi)}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{p\bar{p}})}\\ \leq\frac{|\varphi_{p\bar{q}i}|^{2}(n+\Delta\varphi)}{(1+\varphi_{p\bar{p}})(1+\varphi_{q\bar{q}})}.

Set

u=e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(n+Δ​φ)u=e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(n+\Delta\varphi)

and note that

(n+Δ​φ)​∑i11+φi​i¯≥e−Fn−1​(n+Δ​φ)1+1n−1,(n+\Delta\varphi)\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\geq e^{-\frac{F}{n-1}}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{1+\frac{1}{n-1}},

then we know from equation (3.7):

(3.8) Δφu≥e−(α+1n−1)​F−α​λ​φ​(λ​α2−C3.1)​(n+Δ​φ)1+1n−1−α​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(λ​n−R¯)​(n+Δ​φ)+e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(Δ​F−R).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}&u\geq e^{-(\alpha+\frac{1}{n-1})F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}(\frac{\lambda\alpha}{2}-C_{3.1})(n+\Delta\varphi)^{1+\frac{1}{n-1}}-\alpha e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(\lambda n-\underline{R})(n+\Delta\varphi)\\ &\qquad\qquad+e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(\Delta F-R).\end{split}

We use the following equality, which holds for any p≥0p\geq 0:

12​p+1​Δφ​(u2​p+1)=2​p​u2​p−1​|∇φu|φ2+u2​p​Δφ​u=2​p​u2​p−2​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)​(n+Δ​φ)​|∇φu|φ2+u2​p​Δφ​u≥2​p​u2​p−2​|∇u|2​e−α⁡(F+λ​φ)+u2​p​Δφ​u.\begin{array}[]{lcl}{1\over{2p+1}}\Delta_{\varphi}(u^{2p+1})&=&2pu^{2p-1}|\nabla_{\varphi}u|_{\varphi}^{2}+u^{2p}\Delta_{\varphi}u\\ &=&2pu^{2p-2}e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}(n+\Delta\varphi)|\nabla_{\varphi}u|_{\varphi}^{2}+u^{2p}\Delta_{\varphi}u\\ &\geq&2pu^{2p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}e^{-\alpha(F+\lambda\varphi)}+u^{2p}\Delta_{\varphi}u.\end{array}

Integrate with respect to d​v​o​lφ=eF​d​v​o​lgdvol_{\varphi}=e^{F}dvol_{g} and plug inequality (3.8) to get:

(3.9) ∫M2​p​u2​p−2​|∇u|2​e(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ​𝑑v​o​lg+∫Me−(α−n−2n−1)​F−α​λ​φ(λ​α2−C3.1)(n+Δφ)1+1n−1u2​pdvolg+∫Me(1−α)​F−α​λ​φu2​pΔFdvolg≤∫Mαe(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ(λn−R¯)(n+Δφ)u2​pdvolg+∫Me(1−α)​F−λ​α​φRu2​pdvolg.\begin{split}&\int_{M}2pu^{2p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}dvol_{g}\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\int_{M}e^{-(\alpha-\frac{n-2}{n-1})F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}(\frac{\lambda\alpha}{2}-C_{3.1})(n+\Delta\varphi)^{1+\frac{1}{n-1}}u^{2p}dvol_{g}\\ &\qquad\qquad+\int_{M}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}u^{2p}\Delta Fdvol_{g}\leq\int_{M}\alpha e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}(\lambda n-\underline{R})(n+\Delta\varphi)u^{2p}dvol_{g}\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\int_{M}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}Ru^{2p}dvol_{g}.\end{split}

We need to handle the term involving Δ​F\Delta F, which is done by integrating by parts.

(3.10) ∫Me(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ​u2​p​Δ​F​𝑑v​o​lg=∫M(α−1)​e(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ​u2​p​|∇F|2​𝑑v​o​lg+∫Mαλe(1−α)​F−λ​α​φu2​p∇φ⋅∇Fdvolg−∫M2pe(1−α)​F−λ​α​φu2​p−1∇u⋅∇Fdvolg.\begin{split}&\int_{M}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}u^{2p}\Delta Fdvol_{g}=\int_{M}(\alpha-1)e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}u^{2p}|\nabla F|^{2}dvol_{g}\\ &+\int_{M}\alpha\lambda e^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p}\nabla\varphi\cdot\nabla Fdvol_{g}-\int_{M}2pe^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p-1}\nabla u\cdot\nabla Fdvol_{g}.\end{split}

Also we can estimate the last term of (3.10)

(3.11) u2​p−1∇u⋅∇F≤12u2​p−2|∇u|2+12u2​p|∇F|2.u^{2p-1}\nabla u\cdot\nabla F\leq\frac{1}{2}u^{2p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}u^{2p}|\nabla F|^{2}.

Then we estimate the second to last term of (3.10) and obtain:

(3.12) αλe(1−α)​F−λ​α​φu2​p∇φ⋅∇F≤α−12​e(1−α)​F−λ​α​φ​u2​p​|∇F|2+α2​λ22​(α−1)​u2​p​|∇φ|2​e(1−α)​F−λ​α​φ≤α−12​e(1−α)​F−λ​α​φ​u2​p​|∇F|2+C2.3​α2​λ22​(α−1)​u2​p​e(2−α)​F−λ​α​φ.\begin{split}\alpha&\lambda e^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p}\nabla\varphi\cdot\nabla F\\ \leq&\frac{\alpha-1}{2}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p}|\nabla F|^{2}+\frac{\alpha^{2}\lambda^{2}}{2(\alpha-1)}u^{2p}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}\\ \leq&\frac{\alpha-1}{2}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p}|\nabla F|^{2}+C_{2.3}\frac{\alpha^{2}\lambda^{2}}{2(\alpha-1)}u^{2p}e^{(2-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}.\end{split}

When estimating |∇φ|2|\nabla\varphi|^{2} above, we used Theorem 2.2, and C2.3C_{2.3} is the constant given by that theorem. Plug (3.11), (3.12) back into (3.10), we obtain

(3.13) ∫Me(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ​u2​p​Δ​F​𝑑v​o​lg≥∫M(α−12−p)​e(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ​u2​p​|∇F|2​𝑑v​o​lg−∫MC2.3α2​λ22​(α−1)e(2−α)​F−λ​α​φu2​pdvolg−∫Mpe(1−α)​F−λ​α​φu2​p−2|∇u|2dvolg.\begin{split}&\int_{M}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}u^{2p}\Delta Fdvol_{g}\geq\int_{M}(\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-p)e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}u^{2p}|\nabla F|^{2}dvol_{g}\\ &-\int_{M}C_{2.3}\frac{\alpha^{2}\lambda^{2}}{2(\alpha-1)}e^{(2-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p}dvol_{g}-\int_{M}pe^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}dvol_{g}.\end{split}

Plug (3.13) back to (3.9), we see

(3.14) ∫Mp​e(1−α)​F−λ​α​φ​u2​p−2​|∇u|2​𝑑v​o​lg+∫M(α−12−p)​e(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ​u2​p​|∇F|2​𝑑v​o​lg+∫Me−(α−n−2n−1)​F−α​λ​φ(λ​α2−C3.1)(n+Δφ)1+1n−1u2​pdvolg≤∫Mα​e(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ​(λ​n−R¯)​(n+Δ​φ)​u2​p​𝑑v​o​lg+C2.3​α2​λ22​(α−1)​∫Me(2−α)​F−λ​α​φ​u2​p​𝑑v​o​lg+∫Me(1−α)​F−λ​α​φRu2​pdvolg.\begin{split}&\int_{M}pe^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}dvol_{g}+\int_{M}(\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-p)e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}u^{2p}|\nabla F|^{2}dvol_{g}\\ &\qquad\qquad+\int_{M}e^{-(\alpha-\frac{n-2}{n-1})F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}(\frac{\lambda\alpha}{2}-C_{3.1})(n+\Delta\varphi)^{1+\frac{1}{n-1}}u^{2p}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq\int_{M}\alpha e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}(\lambda n-\underline{R})(n+\Delta\varphi)u^{2p}dvol_{g}+C_{2.3}\frac{\alpha^{2}\lambda^{2}}{2(\alpha-1)}\int_{M}e^{(2-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p}dvol_{g}\\ &\qquad\qquad+\int_{M}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}Ru^{2p}dvol_{g}.\end{split}

Now let α>2​p+1\alpha>2p+1 and λ​α≥2​C3.1+1\lambda\alpha\geq 2C_{3.1}+1, note that n+Δ​φn+\Delta\varphi has positive lower bound, then we find from above:

(3.15) ∫Me−(α−n−2n−1)​F−α​λ​φ​(n+Δ​φ)1+1n−1​u2​p​𝑑v​o​lg≤C3.2​α​∫Me(1−α)​F−α​λ​φ​(n+Δ​φ)​u2​p​dv​o​lg+C3.2​α2α−1​∫Me(2−α)​F−λ​α​φ​u2​p​dv​o​lg.\begin{split}&\int_{M}e^{-(\alpha-\frac{n-2}{n-1})F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{1+\frac{1}{n-1}}u^{2p}dvol_{g}\\ &\qquad\leq C_{3.2}\alpha\int_{M}e^{(1-\alpha)F-\alpha\lambda\varphi}(n+\Delta\varphi)u^{2p}dvol_{g}+C_{3.2}\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\alpha-1}\int_{M}e^{(2-\alpha)F-\lambda\alpha\varphi}u^{2p}dvol_{g}.\end{split}

Recall the definition of uu, this means for any p≥0p\geq 0, α≥2​p+2\alpha\geq 2p+2:

(3.16) ∫Mexp⁡(−(2​p+1)​α​F+n−2n−1​F−λ​α​(2​p+1)​φ)​(n+Δ​φ)2​p+1+1n−1​𝑑v​o​lg≤C3.2​α​∫Mexp⁡(−(2​p+1)​α​F+F−(2​p+1)​α​λ​φ)​(n+Δ​φ)2​p+1​𝑑v​o​lg+C3.2α2α−1∫Mexp(−(2p+1)αF+2F−(2p+1)λφ)(n+Δφ)2​pdvolg.\begin{split}&\int_{M}\exp(-(2p+1)\alpha F+\frac{n-2}{n-1}F-\lambda\alpha(2p+1)\varphi)(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p+1+\frac{1}{n-1}}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq C_{3.2}\alpha\int_{M}\exp(-(2p+1)\alpha F+F-(2p+1)\alpha\lambda\varphi)(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p+1}dvol_{g}\\ &+C_{3.2}\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\alpha-1}\int_{M}\exp(-(2p+1)\alpha F+2F-(2p+1)\lambda\varphi)(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p}dvol_{g}.\end{split}

Hence for some constant C3.3C_{3.3} which depends on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, α\alpha, and pp, we get:

(3.17) ∫Mexp⁡(−(2​p+1)​α​F+n−2n−1​F)​(n+Δ​φ)2​p+1+1n−1​𝑑v​o​lg≤C3.3​(∫Mexp⁡(−(2​p+1)​α​F+F)​(n+Δ​φ)2​p+1​𝑑v​o​lgCLOSE+∫Mexp(−(2p+1)αF+2F)(n+Δφ)2​pdvolg).\begin{split}&\int_{M}\exp(-(2p+1)\alpha F+\frac{n-2}{n-1}F)(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p+1+\frac{1}{n-1}}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq C_{3.3}\bigg(\int_{M}\exp(-(2p+1)\alpha F+F)(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p+1}dvol_{g}\\ &+\int_{M}\exp(-(2p+1)\alpha F+2F)(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p}dvol_{g}\bigg).\end{split}

Start from p=0p=0, and take α=2\alpha=2, one obtains from (3.17) that:

(3.18) ∫Me−nn−1​F(n+Δ​φ)nn−1​𝑑v​o​lg≤C3.3​(∫Me−F​(n+Δ​φ)​𝑑v​o​lg+∫Md​v​o​lg)≤C3.3​(n​‖e−F‖0​v​o​l​(M)+v​o​l​(M)).\begin{split}\int_{M}e^{-\frac{n}{n-1}F}&(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{n}{n-1}}dvol_{g}\leq C_{3.3}\big(\int_{M}e^{-F}(n+\Delta\varphi)dvol_{g}+\int_{M}dvol_{g}\big)\\ &\leq C_{3.3}\big(n||e^{-F}||_{0}vol(M)+vol(M)\big).\end{split}

Since we obtained in Proposition 2.1 a bound for e−Fe^{-F} depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and curvature bound of gg. Hence we get a bound for ∫Me−nn−1​F​(n+Δ​φ)nn−1​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{-\frac{n}{n-1}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{n}{n-1}}dvol_{g}.

We now claim that there exists a sequence of pair of positive numbers (pk,γk)(p_{k},\gamma_{k}) where pk→∞p_{k}\rightarrow\infty such that

∫Me−γk​F​(n+Δ​φ)2​pk+1​𝑑v​o​lg<∞\displaystyle\int_{M}\;e^{-\gamma_{k}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p_{k}+1}\;dvol_{g}<\infty

for all k=1,2⋯.k=1,2\cdots. Now we explain how we choose this sequence of pairs of positive numbers successively: In general, suppose we already choose (pk,γk)(p_{k},\gamma_{k}) such that the preceding inequality holds. Choose αk+1\alpha_{k+1} sufficiently large such that

αk+1≥2​pk+2,and−(2​pk+1)​αk+1+2≤−γk.\alpha_{k+1}\geq 2p_{k}+2,\qquad{\rm and}\qquad-(2p_{k}+1)\alpha_{k+1}+2\leq-\gamma_{k}.

Set α=αk+1\alpha=\alpha_{k+1}, p=pkp=p_{k} in (3.17), we obtain

(3.19) ∫Mexp⁡(−(2​pk+1)​αk+1​F+n−2n−1​F)​(n+Δ​φ)2​pk+1+1n−1​𝑑v​o​lg≤C3.31​(∫Me−γk​F​(n+Δ​φ)2​pk+1​𝑑v​o​lg+∫Me−γk​F​(n+Δ​φ)2​pk​𝑑v​o​lg)≤C3.32​∫Me−γk​F​(n+Δ​φ)2​pk+1​dv​o​lg.\begin{split}&\int_{M}\exp(-(2p_{k}+1)\alpha_{k+1}F+\frac{n-2}{n-1}F)(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p_{k}+1+\frac{1}{n-1}}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq C_{3.31}\bigg(\int_{M}e^{-\gamma_{k}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p_{k}+1}dvol_{g}+\int_{M}e^{-\gamma_{k}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p_{k}}dvol_{g}\bigg)\\ &\leq C_{3.32}\int_{M}e^{-\gamma_{k}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p_{k}+1}dvol_{g}.\end{split}

In the second inequality, we used again the fact that e−Fe^{-F} is bounded in terms of ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and gg. In the last inequality above, we noticed the fact that n+Δ​φ≥eFnn+\Delta\varphi\geq e^{\frac{F}{n}}, and eFe^{F} is bounded from below. Set

γk+1=(2​pk+1)​αk+1−n−2n−1andpk+1=pk+12​(n−1).\gamma_{k+1}=(2p_{k}+1)\alpha_{k+1}-\frac{n-2}{n-1}\qquad{\rm and}\qquad p_{k+1}=p_{k}+\frac{1}{2(n-1)}.

Then

∫Me−γk+1​F​(n+Δ​φ)2​pk+1+1​𝑑v​o​lg≤C​∫Me−γk​F​(n+Δ​φ)2​pk+1.\int_{M}e^{-\gamma_{k+1}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p_{k+1}+1}dvol_{g}\leq C\int_{M}e^{-\gamma_{k}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2p_{k}+1}.

where the constant depends on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and the background metric gg. Our claim is then verified.

By induction, we then get a bound for ∫Me−γp​F​(n+Δ​φ)p​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{-\gamma_{p}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{p}dvol_{g} for any p>0p>0 and some constant γp>0\gamma_{p}>0. Here γp\gamma_{p} grows like p2p^{2} as p→∞p\rightarrow\infty. ∎

[0211]
Remark 3.1.

By a more careful inspection of above argument, one sees that it is possible to choose γp=max⁡((p+1)​(p+2),n​p)\gamma_{p}=\max((p+1)(p+2),np), but this is probably not sharp.

As an immediate consequence, we have the following W2,pW^{2,p} estimate of φ\varphi in terms of ‖F‖0||F||_{0}.

[0212]
Corollary 3.2.

For any 1<p<∞1<p<\infty, there exist constants C~​(p)>0\tilde{C}(p)>0, depending on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, the background metric gg(with dependence in a way described in Theorem 3.1) and pp, such that ‖n+Δ​φ‖Lp≤C~​(p)||n+\Delta\varphi||_{L^{p}}\leq\tilde{C}(p).

[0213]

4. C1,1C^{1,1} bound of the Kähler potential in terms of its W2,pW^{2,p} bound

In this section, we want to prove

[0214]
Theorem 4.1.

There exists a constant C4C_{4}, depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, the absolute and first derivative bound of the Ricci form, and also the Soboloev constant of the background metric gg, such that n+Δ​φ≤C4n+\Delta\varphi\leq C_{4}.

In view of Theorem 2.1, we have the following immediate consequence:

[0215]
Corollary 4.1.

There exists a constant C4.1C_{4.1}, depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, ‖∇φ‖0||\nabla\varphi||_{0}, the background metric gg(described as in Theorem 4.1), such that n+Δ​φ≤C4.1n+\Delta\varphi\leq C_{4.1}.

With this assumption, we know from Corollary 3.2 that for any p>0p>0, there exists constants CpC_{p}, depending on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, and the background metric gg, such that

(4.1) ‖n+Δ​φ‖Lp​(M)≤C~​(p).||n+\Delta\varphi||_{L^{p}(M)}\leq\tilde{C}(p).

Hence it suffices to prove the following statement:

[0216]
Proposition 4.2.

Let (φ,F)(\varphi,F) be a smooth solution to cscK, then there exists pn>0p_{n}>0, depending only on nn, such that

(4.2) maxM⁡|∇φF|φ+maxM⁡(n+Δ​φ)≤C4.2.\max_{M}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}+\max_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)\leq C_{4.2}.

Here C4C_{4} depends only on ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, ‖n+Δ​φ‖Lpn​(M)||n+\Delta\varphi||_{L^{p_{n}}(M)}, and metric gg(in the way described in Theorem 4.1).

[0217]
Remark 4.3.

From the argument below, one can explicitly get an upper bound for

pn≤(3​n−3)​(4​n+1).p_{n}\leq(3n-3)(4n+1).

This upper bound is probably not sharp.

[0218]
Proof.

Let us first calculate Δφ​(|∇φf|φ2)\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2}) for any smooth function ff in M.M.\; First we do the calculation under an orthonormal frame gφg_{\varphi}.

Δφ​|∇φf|2=(fifi¯),jj¯=f,ijj¯fi¯+fif,i¯jj¯+|f,ij|φ2+|f,ij¯|φ2=f,jij¯fi¯+fif,ji¯j¯+|f,ij|φ2+|f,ij¯|φ2=(Δφf)ifi¯+fi(Δφf)i¯+Ricφ,i​j¯fjfi¯+|f,ij|φ2+|f,ij¯|φ2.\begin{array}[]{lcl}\Delta_{\varphi}|\nabla_{\varphi}f|^{2}&=&(f_{i}f_{\bar{i}})_{,j\bar{j}}\\ &=&f_{,ij\bar{j}}f_{\bar{i}}+f_{i}f_{,\bar{i}j\bar{j}}+|f_{,ij}|_{\varphi}^{2}+|f_{,i\bar{j}}|_{\varphi}^{2}\\ &=&f_{,ji\bar{j}}f_{\bar{i}}+f_{i}f_{,j\bar{i}\bar{j}}+|f_{,ij}|_{\varphi}^{2}+|f_{,i\bar{j}}|_{\varphi}^{2}\\ &=&(\Delta_{\varphi}f)_{i}f_{\bar{i}}+f_{i}(\Delta_{\varphi}f)_{\bar{i}}+Ric_{\varphi,i\bar{j}}f_{j}f_{\bar{i}}+|f_{,ij}|_{\varphi}^{2}+|f_{,i\bar{j}}|_{\varphi}^{2}.\end{array}

In the above, f,ij⋯f_{,ij\cdots} denote covariant derivatives under the metric gφg_{\varphi}. Let B⁡(λ):ℝ→ℝB(\lambda):\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R} be a smooth function, now we calculate Δφ​(eB⁡(f)​|∇φf|φ2)\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{B(f)}|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2}).

(4.3) e−B⁡(f)⋅Δφ​(eB⁡(f)​|∇φf|φ2)=Δφ​(|∇φf|φ2)+B′​(fi​(|∇φf|φ2)i¯+fi¯​(|∇φf|φ2)i)+((B′2+B′′)​|∇φf|2+B′​Δφ​f)​|∇φf|φ2=(Δφf)ifi¯+fi(Δφf)i¯+Ricφ,i​j¯fjfi¯+|f,ij|φ2+|f,ij¯|φ2+B′(fifjf,j¯i¯+fif,ji¯fj¯+fi¯fjf,j¯i+fi¯f,jifj¯)+((B′2+B′′)​|∇φf|φ2+B′​Δφ​f)​|∇φf|φ2≥(Δφf)ifi¯+fi(Δφf)i¯+Ricφ,i​j¯fjfi¯+|f,ij¯|φ2+B′(fif,ji¯fj¯+fi¯fjf,j¯i)+(B′′|∇φf|φ2+B′Δφf)|∇φf|φ2.\begin{split}&e^{-B(f)}\cdot\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{B(f)}|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2})\\ &=\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2})+B^{\prime}(f_{i}(|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2})_{\bar{i}}+f_{\bar{i}}(|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2})_{i})\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad+\left((B^{\prime 2}+B^{\prime\prime})|\nabla_{\varphi}f|^{2}+B^{\prime}\Delta_{\varphi}f\right)|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2}\\ &=(\Delta_{\varphi}f)_{i}f_{\bar{i}}+f_{i}(\Delta_{\varphi}f)_{\bar{i}}+Ric_{\varphi,i\bar{j}}f_{j}f_{\bar{i}}+|f_{,ij}|_{\varphi}^{2}+|f_{,i\bar{j}}|_{\varphi}^{2}\\ &+B^{\prime}\left(f_{i}f_{j}f_{,\bar{j}\bar{i}}+f_{i}f_{,j\bar{i}}f_{\bar{j}}+f_{\bar{i}}f_{j}f_{,\bar{j}i}+f_{\bar{i}}f_{,ji}f_{\bar{j}}\right)\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\left((B^{\prime 2}+B^{\prime\prime})|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2}+B^{\prime}\Delta_{\varphi}f\right)|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2}\\ &\geq(\Delta_{\varphi}f)_{i}f_{\bar{i}}+f_{i}(\Delta_{\varphi}f)_{\bar{i}}+Ric_{\varphi,i\bar{j}}f_{j}f_{\bar{i}}+|f_{,i\bar{j}}|_{\varphi}^{2}\\ &+B^{\prime}\left(f_{i}f_{,j\bar{i}}f_{\bar{j}}+f_{\bar{i}}f_{j}f_{,\bar{j}i}\right)+\left(B^{\prime\prime}|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2}+B^{\prime}\Delta_{\varphi}f\right)|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{2}.\end{split}

In the inequality above, we noticed and dropped the following complete square:

B′2|∇φf|φ4+B′fifjf,j¯i¯+B′fi¯fj¯f,ij+|f,ij|φ2=|f,ij+B′fifj|φ2.B^{\prime 2}|\nabla_{\varphi}f|_{\varphi}^{4}+B^{\prime}f_{i}f_{j}f_{,\bar{j}\bar{i}}+B^{\prime}f_{\bar{i}}f_{\bar{j}}f_{,ij}+|f_{,ij}|_{\varphi}^{2}=|f_{,ij}+B^{\prime}f_{i}f_{j}|_{\varphi}^{2}.

We apply above calculation to FF. Notice that

R​i​cφ,i​j¯=Ri​j¯−Fi​j¯.Ric_{\varphi,i\bar{j}}=R_{i\bar{j}}-F_{i\bar{j}}.

Set B′=12,B^{\prime}={1\over 2},\;and we switch to normal coordinate of gg (c.f. (2.1)), then we have

(4.4) e−F2Δφ(eF2|∇φF|2)≥(Δφ​F)i​Fi¯+(Δφ​F)i¯​Fi1+φi​i¯+Rj​i¯​Fi​Fj¯(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φj​j¯)+|Fi​α¯|2(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φα​α¯)+12​Δφ​F​|∇φF|φ2.\begin{split}e^{-{F\over 2}}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F\over 2}|&\nabla_{\varphi}F|^{2})\geq{{(\Delta_{\varphi}F)_{i}F_{\bar{i}}+(\Delta_{\varphi}F)_{\bar{i}}F_{i}}\over{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}}+\frac{R_{j\bar{i}}F_{i}F_{\bar{j}}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{j\bar{j}})}\\ &\qquad\qquad+\frac{|F_{i\bar{\alpha}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})}+{1\over 2}\Delta_{\varphi}F|\nabla_{\varphi}F|^{2}_{\varphi}.\end{split}

Next we wish to use the equation satisfied by FF:

Δφ​F=−R¯+t​rφ​R​i​c.\Delta_{\varphi}F=-\underline{R}+tr_{\varphi}Ric.

Take derivative with respect to ziz_{i} on both sides, we obtain:

(Δφ​F)i=−gφk​p¯​gφ,p¯​q​i​gφq​l¯​Rk​l¯+gφk​l¯​Rk​l¯,i=−φk¯​l​i​Rk​l¯(1+φk​k¯)​(1+φl​l¯)+Rk​k¯,i1+φk​k¯.\begin{array}[]{lcl}(\Delta_{\varphi}F)_{i}&=&-g_{\varphi}^{k\bar{p}}g_{\varphi,\bar{p}qi}g_{\varphi}^{q\bar{l}}R_{k\bar{l}}+g_{\varphi}^{k\bar{l}}R_{k\bar{l},i}\\ &=&-{{\varphi_{\bar{k}li}R_{k\bar{l}}}\over{(1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}})(1+\varphi_{l\bar{l}})}}+{R_{k\bar{k},i}\over{1+\varphi_{k\bar{k}}}}.\end{array}

Plugging this into equation (4.4), we have

(4.5) e−F2Δφ(eF2|∇φF|2)≥−Fi¯​φβ​α¯​i​Rα​β¯+Fi​φβ​α¯​i¯​Rα​β¯(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)+Fi¯​Rα​α¯,i+Fi​Rα​α¯,i¯(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φi​i¯)+Rj​i¯​Fi​Fj¯(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φj​j¯)+|Fi​α¯|2(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φα​α¯)+12​(−R¯+Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯)​|∇φF|φ2.\begin{split}e^{-{F\over 2}}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F\over 2}|&\nabla_{\varphi}F|^{2})\geq-\frac{F_{\bar{i}}\varphi_{\beta\bar{\alpha}i}R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}+F_{i}\varphi_{\beta\bar{\alpha}\bar{i}}R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}+\frac{F_{\bar{i}}R_{\alpha\bar{\alpha},i}+F_{i}R_{\alpha\bar{\alpha},\bar{i}}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}\\ &+\frac{R_{j\bar{i}}F_{i}F_{\bar{j}}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{j\bar{j}})}+\frac{|F_{i\bar{\alpha}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})}+{1\over 2}(-\underline{R}+\frac{R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}})|\nabla_{\varphi}F|^{2}_{\varphi}.\end{split}

In the above, φβ​α¯​i\varphi_{\beta\bar{\alpha}i}, Rα​α¯,iR_{\alpha\bar{\alpha},i} etc are just usual derivatives taken under the coordinate as specified above. Notice that there will be no more terms like Fj​i¯​Fi​Fj¯(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φj​j¯)\frac{F_{j\bar{i}}F_{i}F_{\bar{j}}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{j\bar{j}})}, because the choice B′≡12B^{\prime}\equiv\frac{1}{2} makes such terms exactly cancel out. Now we proceed further from (4.5). As preparation, we observe that for any 1≤i≤n1\leq i\leq n:

(4.6) 11+φi​i¯=e−F​Πj≠i​(1+φj​j¯)≤e−F​(n+Δ​φ)n−1.\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}=e^{-F}\Pi_{j\neq i}(1+\varphi_{j\bar{j}})\leq e^{-F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{n-1}.

First we can estimate as follows, with various constants CiC_{i} depending only on nn, ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, and the curvature bound of the original metric gg.

(4.7) |12​eF2​(−R¯+Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯)|≤C4.3​(1+∑i11+φi​i¯)≤C4.3​(1+n​e−F​(n+Δ​φ)n−1).|{1\over 2}e^{{F\over 2}}(-\underline{R}+\frac{R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}})|\leq C_{4.3}(1+\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}})\leq C_{4.3}(1+ne^{-F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{n-1}).
(4.8) |Fi¯​φβ​α¯​i​Rα​β¯|(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)≤12​|φβ​α¯​i|2​|Rα​β¯|2(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)+12​|Fi¯|2(1+φi​i¯)2​(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)≤C4.4​|φβ​α¯​i|2(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)+C4.4​|Fi|21+φi​i¯​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3.\begin{split}\frac{|F_{\bar{i}}\varphi_{\beta\bar{\alpha}i}R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}|}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}&\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{|\varphi_{\beta\bar{\alpha}i}|^{2}|R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{|F_{\bar{i}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{2}(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}\\ &\leq C_{4.4}\frac{|\varphi_{\beta\bar{\alpha}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}+\frac{C_{4.4}|F_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}.\end{split}

In the second line of above estimate, we used (4.6) to estimate the extra powers of 11+φα​α¯\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}}. The conjugate term will satisfy the same estimate as above.

(4.9) |Fi¯​Rα​α¯,i(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φi​i¯)|≤12​|Fi¯|2​|Rα​α¯,i|21+φi​i¯+12​1(1+φα​α¯)2​(1+φi​i¯)≤C4.5​|Fi|21+φi​i¯+C4.5​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3.\begin{split}|\frac{F_{\bar{i}}R_{\alpha\bar{\alpha},i}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}|&\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{|F_{\bar{i}}|^{2}|R_{\alpha\bar{\alpha},i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})^{2}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}\\ &\leq C_{4.5}\frac{|F_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+C_{4.5}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}.\end{split}

Finally

(4.10) |Rj​i¯​Fi​Fj¯(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φj​j¯)|≤12​|Rj​i¯|2​|Fi|2(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φj​j¯)+12​|Rj​i¯|2​|Fj¯|2(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φj​j¯)≤C4.6​|Fi|21+φi​i¯​(n+Δ​φ)n−1.\begin{split}|\frac{R_{j\bar{i}}F_{i}F_{\bar{j}}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{j\bar{j}})}|&\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{|R_{j\bar{i}}|^{2}|F_{i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{j\bar{j}})}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{|R_{j\bar{i}}|^{2}|F_{\bar{j}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{j\bar{j}})}\\ &\leq C_{4.6}\frac{|F_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{n-1}.\end{split}

Now combining the estimates in (4.7), (4.8), (4.9), (4.10), we obtain from (4.5):

(4.11) Δφ​(e12​F​|∇φF|φ2)≥−C4.7​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​|∇φF|φ2−C4.7​|φβ​α¯​i|2(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)−C4.7​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3+1C4.7​|Fi​α¯|2(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φα​α¯).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{\frac{1}{2}F}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2})&\geq-C_{4.7}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}-C_{4.7}\frac{|\varphi_{\beta\bar{\alpha}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}\\ &-C_{4.7}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}+\frac{1}{C_{4.7}}\frac{|F_{i\bar{\alpha}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})}.\end{split}

Note that n+Δ​φ≥n​eFnn+\Delta\varphi\geq ne^{\frac{F}{n}}, hence has a positive uniform lower bound since FF is bounded from below. Here C4.7C_{4.7} is some constant depending only on nn, ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, and the curvature bound of the original metric gg. In order to handle the second term on the right hand side, we need to consider Δφ​(n+Δ​φ)\Delta_{\varphi}(n+\Delta\varphi). For this we can recall our calculation in (3.6):

(4.12) Δφ​(n+Δ​φ)=Ri​i¯​α​α¯​(1+φi​i¯)1+φα​α¯+|φα​β¯​i|2(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)+Fi​i¯−Ri​i¯≥−C4.8​(1+φi​i¯)1+φα​α¯+|φα​β¯​i|2(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)+Fi​i¯−C4.8≥−C4.9​(n+Δ​φ)n+|φα​β¯​i|2(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)+Fi​i¯−C4.8.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(n+\Delta\varphi)&=\frac{R_{i\bar{i}\alpha\bar{\alpha}}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}{1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}+F_{i\bar{i}}-R_{i\bar{i}}\\ &\geq\frac{-C_{4.8}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}{1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}+F_{i\bar{i}}-C_{4.8}\\ &\geq-C_{4.9}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{n}+\frac{|\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}+F_{i\bar{i}}-C_{4.8}.\end{split}

Let K>0K>0 be a constant, we combine (4.11), (4.12), and conclude:

(4.13) Δφ​(e12​FCLOSEOPEN|∇φF|φ2+K⁡(n+Δ​φ))≥−C4.7​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​|∇φF|φ2+(K−C4.7)​|φα​β¯​i|2(1+φα​α¯)​(1+φβ​β¯)−C4.7​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3−K​C4.9​(n+Δ​φ)n+K​Fi​i¯−K​C4.8+1C4.7​|Fi​α¯|2(1+φi​i¯)​(1+φα​α¯).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{\frac{1}{2}F}&|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}+K(n+\Delta\varphi))\geq-C_{4.7}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}+(K-C_{4.7})\frac{|\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}i}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})(1+\varphi_{\beta\bar{\beta}})}\\ &-C_{4.7}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}-KC_{4.9}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{n}+KF_{i\bar{i}}-KC_{4.8}+\frac{1}{C_{4.7}}\frac{|F_{i\bar{\alpha}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})}.\end{split}

First we choose K=C4.7+1K=C_{4.7}+1, and calculate:

(4.14) |K​Fi​i¯|≤12​C4.7​|Fi​i¯|2(1+φi​i¯)2+K2​C4.72​(1+φi​i¯)2≤12​C4.7​|Fi​i¯|2(1+φi​i¯)2+n​K2​C4.72​(n+Δ​φ)2.|KF_{i\bar{i}}|\leq\frac{1}{2C_{4.7}}\frac{|F_{i\bar{i}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{2}}+\frac{K^{2}C_{4.7}}{2}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{2}\leq\frac{1}{2C_{4.7}}\frac{|F_{i\bar{i}}|^{2}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{2}}+\frac{nK^{2}C_{4.7}}{2}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{2}.

Hence there exists a constant C4.91C_{4.91}, with the same dependence as said above, such that

(4.15) Δφ(e12​F​|∇φF|φ2+K⁡(n+Δ​φ))≥−C4.91​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​|∇φF|φ2−C4.91​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3≥−C4.91​e−12​F​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​(e12​F​|∇φF|φ2+K⁡(n+Δ​φ))−C4.91​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}&(e^{\frac{1}{2}F}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}+K(n+\Delta\varphi))\geq-C_{4.91}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}-C_{4.91}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}\\ &\geq-C_{4.91}e^{-\frac{1}{2}F}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}(e^{\frac{1}{2}F}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}+K(n+\Delta\varphi))-C_{4.91}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}.\end{split}

Set

u=e12​F​|∇φF|φ2+K⁡(n+Δ​φ),u=e^{\frac{1}{2}F}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}+K(n+\Delta\varphi),

we obtain the key estimate from here:

(4.16) Δφ​u≥−C4.92​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​u−C4.92​(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3.\Delta_{\varphi}u\geq-C_{4.92}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}u-C_{4.92}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}.

Next we plan to do iteration, using (4.16). Notice that for any p>0p>0:

(4.17) 12​p+1​Δφ​(u2​p+1)=u2​p​Δφ​u+2​p​u2​p−1​|∇φu|φ2.{1\over{2p+1}}\Delta_{\varphi}(u^{2p+1})=u^{2p}\Delta_{\varphi}u+2pu^{2p-1}|\nabla_{\varphi}u|_{\varphi}^{2}.

Integrate over MM, we obtain:

(4.18) ∫M2pu2​p−1|∇φu|φ2dvolφ=−∫Mu2​pΔφudvolφ.\int_{M}2pu^{2p-1}|\nabla_{\varphi}u|_{\varphi}^{2}dvol_{\varphi}=-\int_{M}u^{2p}\Delta_{\varphi}udvol_{\varphi}.

Plug in the key estimate (4.16), we get:

(4.19) ∫M2​p​u2​p−1​|∇φu|φ2​𝑑v​o​lφ≤C4.92​∫M(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​u2​p+1​𝑑v​o​lφ+C4.92∫M(n+Δφ)3​n−3u2​pdvolφ.\begin{split}\int_{M}2pu^{2p-1}|\nabla_{\varphi}u|_{\varphi}^{2}dvol_{\varphi}&\leq C_{4.92}\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}u^{2p+1}dvol_{\varphi}\\ &+C_{4.92}\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}u^{2p}dvol_{\varphi}.\end{split}

Or equivalently:

(4.20) ∫M|∇φ(up+12)|φ2​𝑑v​o​lφ≤C4.92​(p+12)22​p​∫M(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​(u2​p+1+u2​p)​𝑑v​o​lφ.\int_{M}|\nabla_{\varphi}(u^{p+\frac{1}{2}})|^{2}_{\varphi}dvol_{\varphi}\leq\frac{C_{4.92}(p+\frac{1}{2})^{2}}{2p}\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}(u^{2p+1}+u^{2p})dvol_{\varphi}.

Observe that u≥K⁡(n+Δ​φ)≥eFnu\geq K(n+\Delta\varphi)\geq e^{\frac{F}{n}}, u2​p≤u2​p+1​e−Fn≤C⋅u2​p+1u^{2p}\leq u^{2p+1}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}\leq C\cdot u^{2p+1}. Hence for some constant C3.91C_{3.91}, we have

(4.21) ∫M|∇φ(up+12)|φ2​𝑑v​o​lφ≤C4.93​(p+12)22​p​∫M(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​u2​p+1​𝑑v​o​lφ.\int_{M}|\nabla_{\varphi}(u^{p+\frac{1}{2}})|_{\varphi}^{2}dvol_{\varphi}\leq\frac{C_{4.93}(p+\frac{1}{2})^{2}}{2p}\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}u^{2p+1}dvol_{\varphi}.

Since d​v​o​lφ=eF​d​v​o​lgdvol_{\varphi}=e^{F}dvol_{g}, and FF is bounded, we see

(4.22) ∫M|∇φ(up+12)|φ2​𝑑v​o​lg≤C4.94​(p+12)22​p​∫M(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​u2​p+1​𝑑v​o​lg.\int_{M}|\nabla_{\varphi}(u^{p+\frac{1}{2}})|_{\varphi}^{2}dvol_{g}\leq\frac{C_{4.94}(p+\frac{1}{2})^{2}}{2p}\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}u^{2p+1}dvol_{g}.

Fix ε∈(0,2)\varepsilon\in(0,2) to be determined, we estimate the right hand side of (4.22):

(4.23) ∫M(n+Δ​φ)3​n−3​u2​p+1​𝑑v​o​lg≤(∫Mu(p+12)​(2+ε)​𝑑v​o​lg)22+ε​(∫M(n+Δ​φ)(3​n−3)​(2+ε)ε)ε2+ε.\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{3n-3}u^{2p+1}dvol_{g}\leq\bigg(\int_{M}u^{(p+\frac{1}{2})(2+\varepsilon)}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{2}{2+\varepsilon}}\bigg(\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{(3n-3)(2+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}}\bigg)^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2+\varepsilon}}.

Denote v=up+12v=u^{p+\frac{1}{2}}, then (4.22) now becomes:

(4.24) ∫M|∇φv|φ2​𝑑v​o​lg≤C4.94​(p+12)22​p​(∫M(n+Δ​φ)(3​n−3)​(2+ε)ε)ε2+ε⋅(∫Mv2+ε​𝑑v​o​lg)22+ε.\int_{M}|\nabla_{\varphi}v|_{\varphi}^{2}dvol_{g}\leq\frac{C_{4.94}(p+\frac{1}{2})^{2}}{2p}\bigg(\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{(3n-3)(2+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}}\bigg)^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2+\varepsilon}}\cdot\bigg(\int_{M}v^{2+\varepsilon}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{2}{2+\varepsilon}}.

We estimate the left hand side of (4.24) from below:

(4.25) |∇v|2−ε≤∑i|vi|2−ε=∑i|vi|2−ε(1+φi​i¯)2−ε2⋅(1+φi​i¯)2−ε2≤(∑i|vi|21+φi​i¯)2−ε2​(∑i(1+φi​i¯)2−εε)ε2≤|∇φv|φ2−ε​nε2​(n+Δ​φ)2−ε2.\begin{split}|\nabla v|^{2-\varepsilon}&\leq\sum_{i}|v_{i}|^{2-\varepsilon}=\sum_{i}\frac{|v_{i}|^{2-\varepsilon}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{2}}}\cdot(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{2}}\\ &\leq\bigg(\sum_{i}\frac{|v_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\bigg)^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{2}}(\sum_{i}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}}\bigg)^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}\leq|\nabla_{\varphi}v|_{\varphi}^{2-\varepsilon}n^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{2}}.\end{split}

Integrate and use Holder inequality, we get:

(4.26) ∫M|∇v|2−ε​𝑑v​o​lg≤nε2​∫M|∇φv|φ2−ε​(n+Δ​φ)2−ε2​𝑑v​o​lg≤nε2​(∫M|∇φv|φ2)2−ε2​(∫M(n+Δ​φ)2−εε​dv​o​lg)ε2.\begin{split}\int_{M}&|\nabla v|^{2-\varepsilon}dvol_{g}\leq n^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}\int_{M}|\nabla_{\varphi}v|_{\varphi}^{2-\varepsilon}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{2}}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq n^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}\bigg(\int_{M}|\nabla_{\varphi}v|_{\varphi}^{2}\bigg)^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{2}}\bigg(\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}.\end{split}

Therefore, for p≥12p\geq\frac{1}{2}, we may apply (4.24) to get:

(4.27) (∫M|∇v|2−ε​𝑑v​o​lg)22−ε≤nε2−ε​(∫M(n+Δ​φ)2−εε​𝑑v​o​lg)ε2−ε​∫M|∇φv|φ2​𝑑v​o​lg≤C4.95​p​Kε​(∫Mv2+ε​dv​o​lg)22+ε.\begin{split}\bigg(\int_{M}|\nabla v|^{2-\varepsilon}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{2}{2-\varepsilon}}&\leq n^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2-\varepsilon}}\bigg(\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2-\varepsilon}}\int_{M}|\nabla_{\varphi}v|_{\varphi}^{2}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq C_{4.95}pK_{\varepsilon}\bigg(\int_{M}v^{2+\varepsilon}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{2}{2+\varepsilon}}.\end{split}

Here

(4.28) Kε=nε2−ε⋅(∫M(n+Δ​φ)2−εε​𝑑v​o​lg)ε2−ε⋅(∫M(n+Δ​φ)(3​n−3)​(2+ε)ε)ε2+ε.K_{\varepsilon}=n^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2-\varepsilon}}\cdot\bigg(\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2-\varepsilon}}\cdot\bigg(\int_{M}(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{(3n-3)(2+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}}\bigg)^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2+\varepsilon}}.

Apply the Sobolev embedding with exponent 2−ε2-\varepsilon, and denote θ=2​n​(2−ε)2​n−2+ε\theta=\frac{2n(2-\varepsilon)}{2n-2+\varepsilon} to be the improved integrability, we get

‖v‖Lθ​(d​v​o​lg)≤Cs​o​b​(‖∇v‖L2−ε​(d​v​o​lg)+‖v‖L2−ε​(d​v​o​lg)).||v||_{L^{\theta}(dvol_{g})}\leq C_{sob}(||\nabla v||_{L^{2-\varepsilon}(dvol_{g})}+||v||_{L^{2-\varepsilon}(dvol_{g})}).

Recall that v=up+12v=u^{p+\frac{1}{2}}, this means:

(4.29) (∫Mu(p+12)​θ​𝑑v​o​lgCLOSEOPEN)2θ≤Cs​o​b​((∫M|∇(up+12)|2−ε​𝑑v​o​lg)22−ε+(∫Mu(p+12)​(2−ε)​𝑑v​o​lg)22−ε)≤Cs​o​b​(C4.95​p​Kε​(∫Mu(p+12)​(2+ε)​𝑑v​o​lg)22+ε+(∫Mu(p+12)​(2−ε)​𝑑v​o​lg)22−ε)≤C4.96,ε​p​(∫Mu(p+12)​(2+ε)​dv​o​lg)22+ε.\begin{split}\bigg(\int_{M}u^{(p+\frac{1}{2})\theta}dvol_{g}&\bigg)^{\frac{2}{\theta}}\leq C_{sob}\bigg(\big(\int_{M}|\nabla(u^{p+\frac{1}{2}})|^{2-\varepsilon}dvol_{g}\big)^{\frac{2}{2-\varepsilon}}+\big(\int_{M}u^{(p+\frac{1}{2})(2-\varepsilon)}dvol_{g}\big)^{\frac{2}{2-\varepsilon}}\bigg)\\ &\leq C_{sob}\bigg(C_{4.95}pK_{\varepsilon}\big(\int_{M}u^{(p+\frac{1}{2})(2+\varepsilon)}dvol_{g}\big)^{\frac{2}{2+\varepsilon}}+\big(\int_{M}u^{(p+\frac{1}{2})(2-\varepsilon)}dvol_{g}\big)^{\frac{2}{2-\varepsilon}}\bigg)\\ &\leq C_{4.96,\varepsilon}p\big(\int_{M}u^{(p+\frac{1}{2})(2+\varepsilon)}dvol_{g}\big)^{\frac{2}{2+\varepsilon}}.\end{split}

Here C4.96,εC_{4.96,\varepsilon} has the same dependence as CiC_{i}’s above, but with additional dependence on ε\varepsilon. From the 1st line to 2nd line, we used (4.27). Now choose ε>0\varepsilon>0 small so that θ>2+ε\theta>2+\varepsilon, then above estimate indeed improves integrability, namely we need

(4.30) 2​n​(2−ε)2​n−2+ε>2+ε.\frac{2n(2-\varepsilon)}{2n-2+\varepsilon}>2+\varepsilon.

We fix ε\varepsilon and (4.29) gives for p≥12p\geq\frac{1}{2}:

(4.31) ‖u‖L(p+12)​θ≤(C4.97​p)1p+12​‖u‖L(p+12)​(2+ε).||u||_{L^{(p+\frac{1}{2})\theta}}\leq\big(C_{4.97}p\big)^{\frac{1}{p+\frac{1}{2}}}||u||_{L^{(p+\frac{1}{2})(2+\varepsilon)}}.

Denote χ=θ2+ε>1\chi=\frac{\theta}{2+\varepsilon}>1, and choose p+12=χip+\frac{1}{2}=\chi^{i}, for i≥0i\geq 0. Then we obtain:

(4.32) ‖u‖L(2+ε)​χi+1≤(C4.97​χi)1χi​‖u‖L(2+ε)​χi.||u||_{L^{(2+\varepsilon)\chi^{i+1}}}\leq\big(C_{4.97}\chi^{i}\big)^{\frac{1}{\chi^{i}}}||u||_{L^{(2+\varepsilon)\chi^{i}}}.

It follows that

(4.33) ‖u‖L∞≤C4.97∑i≥01χi⋅χ∑i≥0iχi​‖u‖L2+ε≤C4.97∑i≥01χi⋅χ∑i≥0iχi​‖u‖L112+ε​‖u‖L∞1+ε2+ε.||u||_{L^{\infty}}\leq C_{4.97}^{\sum_{i\geq 0}\frac{1}{\chi^{i}}}\cdot\chi^{\sum_{i\geq 0}\frac{i}{\chi^{i}}}||u||_{L^{2+\varepsilon}}\leq C_{4.97}^{\sum_{i\geq 0}\frac{1}{\chi^{i}}}\cdot\chi^{\sum_{i\geq 0}\frac{i}{\chi^{i}}}||u||_{L^{1}}^{\frac{1}{2+\varepsilon}}||u||_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{1+\varepsilon}{2+\varepsilon}}.

From above we get estimate of ‖u‖L∞||u||_{L^{\infty}} in terms of ‖u‖L1||u||_{L^{1}}. But recall u=e12​F​|∇φF|2+K⁡(n+Δ​φ)u=e^{\frac{1}{2}F}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|^{2}+K(n+\Delta\varphi), so L1L^{1} estimate is available.

Indeed, it is clear that n+Δ​φ∈L1n+\Delta\varphi\in L^{1}. To see e12​F​|∇φF|φ2∈L1e^{\frac{1}{2}F}|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}\in L^{1}, we just need to show |∇φF|φ2∈L1|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}\in L^{1} since FF is now assumed to be bounded. Then we can calculate:

(4.34) Δφ​(F2)=2​|∇φF|φ2+2​F​Δφ​F=2​|∇φF|φ2+2​F​(−R¯+t​rφ​R​i​c).\Delta_{\varphi}(F^{2})=2|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}+2F\Delta_{\varphi}F=2|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}+2F(-\underline{R}+tr_{\varphi}Ric).

Integrate with respect to d​v​o​lφ=eF​d​v​o​lgdvol_{\varphi}=e^{F}dvol_{g}, we see

(4.35) ∫MeF|∇φF|φ2​𝑑v​o​lg=∫MeF​F​(R¯−t​rφ​R​i​c)​𝑑v​o​lg≤C4.98​∫M(1+t​rφ​g)​𝑑v​o​lg≤C3.96​(n+1)​v​o​l​(M).\begin{split}\int_{M}e^{F}&|\nabla_{\varphi}F|_{\varphi}^{2}dvol_{g}=\int_{M}e^{F}F(\underline{R}-tr_{\varphi}Ric)dvol_{g}\leq C_{4.98}\int_{M}(1+tr_{\varphi}g)dvol_{g}\\ &\leq C_{3.96}(n+1)vol(M).\end{split}

Here C4.98C_{4.98} may depend on ‖F‖0||F||_{0}. To see the range of pnp_{n} asserted in the Remark 4.3, we notice the choice of ε=12​n\varepsilon=\frac{1}{2n} verifies the requirement in (4.30). With this choice, the highest power of n+Δ​φn+\Delta\varphi appearing in (4.28) is exactly (3​n−3)​(4​n+1)(3n-3)(4n+1). Once we have control over KεK_{\varepsilon}, the rest of the proof goes through. ∎

[0219]

5. Entropy bound of the volume ratio and C0C^{0} bound of Kähler potential

The main goal of this section is to show the C0C^{0} bound of φ\varphi implies a bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} and vice versa:

[021A]
Theorem 5.1.

Let (φ,F)(\varphi,F) be a smooth solution to cscK, then ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} can be bounded in terms of ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}. Conversely, a bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} implies a bound for ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, in particular ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}.

The most difficult part of above theorem is to show that an upper bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} implies a bound on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, which is the main focus of this section. That ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} implies a bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} essentially follows from the fact that cscK are minimizers of KK-energy. In particular, having a bound on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} is enough to control ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, hence estimates up to C1,1C^{1,1}, thanks to the results obtained in previous sections. Actually we will see it is enough to have a bound for ∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}, where Φ⁡(F)>0\Phi(F)>0 is coercive in FF in the sense that

  1. (1)

    limt→−∞et⋅Φ⁡(t)=0\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow-\infty}\;e^{t}\cdot\Phi(t)=0 and limt→∞Φ⁡(t)=∞\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\;\Phi(t)=\infty

  2. (2)

    limt→∞Φ⁡(t)t<∞.\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\;{{\Phi(t)}\over t}<\infty.\;

We want to show that, under these conditions, an upper bound for ∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g} will imply a bound for ∫Meq​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{qF}dvol_{g} for any q<∞q<\infty. This bound can then imply a bound for ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, due to the deep result by Kolodziej, [25], but an elementary argument which only uses Alexandrov maximum principle (Lemma 5.5) and avoids pluripotential theory is also possible. This argument is due to Blocki (c.f. [2]). From Corollary 5.4, we obtain a bound for ‖eF‖0||e^{F}||_{0}. We have also shown in Proposition 2.1 that a C0C^{0} bound of φ\varphi will imply a lower bound for FF. Hence a bound for ‖F‖0||F||_{0} can be obtained this way. Then estimates in previous sections can be applied to obtain higher derivatives bound.

Define

(5.1) P(M,g)={ϕ∈C2(M,ℝ):gi​j¯+∂2ϕ∂zi​∂z¯j≥0,supMϕ=0}.P(M,g)=\{\phi\in C^{2}(M,\mathbb{R}):g_{i\bar{j}}+\frac{\partial^{2}\phi}{\partial z_{i}\partial\bar{z}_{j}}\geq 0,\,\sup_{M}\phi=0\}.

The following result of Tian is well-known, whose proof may be found in [32], Proposition 2.1:

[021B]
Proposition 5.1.

There exists two positive constant α\alpha, C5C_{5}, depending only on (M,g)(M,g), such that

(5.2) ∫Me−α​ϕ​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5​, for any ϕ∈P⁡(M,g).\int_{M}e^{-\alpha\phi}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5}\textrm{, for any $\phi\in P(M,g)$.}

Here α=α⁡(M,[ω])\alpha=\alpha(M,[\omega]) is the so called α\alpha-invariant. To start, we normalize φ\varphi so that supMφ=0\sup_{M}\varphi=0. We also need to consider the auxiliary Kähler potential ψ∈ℋ\psi\in\mathcal{H}, which solves the following problem:

(5.3) det(gi​j¯+ψi​j¯)=eF​Φ​(F)​det(gi​j¯)∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg,\displaystyle\det(g_{i\bar{j}}+\psi_{i\bar{j}})=\frac{e^{F}\Phi(F)\det(g_{i\bar{j}})}{\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}},
(5.4) supMψ=0.\displaystyle\sup_{M}\psi=0.

The existence of such ψ\psi follows from Yau’s celebrated theorem on Calabi’s volume conjecture (c.f. [35], Theorem 2) . Because of Proposition 5.1, we know that

∫Me−α​φ​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5,∫Me−α​ψ​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5.\int_{M}e^{-\alpha\varphi}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5},\qquad\int_{M}e^{-\alpha\psi}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5}.

We will show that the following estimate holds:

[021C]
Theorem 5.2.

Given any 0<ε<10<\varepsilon<1, there exists a constant C5.1C_{5.1}, depending on ε\varepsilon, the background metric gg, the choice of Φ\Phi, and the bound ∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}, such that

(5.5) F+ε​ψ−2​(1+maxM⁡|R​i​c|)​φ≤C5.1.F+\varepsilon\psi-2(1+\max_{M}|Ric|)\varphi\leq C_{5.1}.
[021D]
Corollary 5.2.

For any 0<q<∞0<q<\infty, there exists a constant C5.2C_{5.2}, depending only on the background metric gg, the choice of Φ\Phi, the bound ∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}, and qq, such that

(5.6) ∫Meq​F​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5.2, ‖φ‖0≤C5.2, ‖ψ‖0≤C5.2.\int_{M}e^{qF}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5.2},\textrm{ $||\varphi||_{0}\leq C_{5.2}$, $||\psi||_{0}\leq C_{5.2}.$}

We will show this important corollary first.

[021E]
Proof.

First we derive the estimate for ∫Meq​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{qF}dvol_{g} with q>1q>1.

From Theorem 5.2, we know

(5.7) −α​ψ≥αε​(F−2​(1+maxM⁡|R​i​c|)​φ−C5.1).-\alpha\psi\geq\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}\big(F-2(1+\max_{M}|Ric|)\varphi-C_{5.1}\big).

hence

(5.8) C5≥∫Me−α​ψ​dv​o​lg≥∫Mexp⁡(αε​(F−2​(1+maxM⁡|R​i​c|)​φ−C5.1))​𝑑v​o​lg≥∫Mexp⁡(αε​(F−C5.1))​dv​o​lg.\begin{split}C_{5}\geq\int_{M}e^{-\alpha\psi}dvol_{g}\geq&\int_{M}\exp\big(\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}(F-2(1+\max_{M}|Ric|)\varphi-C_{5.1})\big)dvol_{g}\\ &\geq\int_{M}\exp\big(\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}(F-C_{5.1})\big)dvol_{g}.\end{split}

The last inequality holds because we normalized φ\varphi so that φ≤0\varphi\leq 0. Choose ε=αq\varepsilon=\frac{\alpha}{q}, then we immediately get the desired estimate for ∫Meq​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{qF}dvol_{g}. The claimed estimate for φ\varphi and ψ\psi immediately follows from the estimate for ‖eF‖Lq​(q>2)||e^{F}||_{L^{q}}(q>2), given in the lemma below. ∎

[021F]
Lemma 5.3.

Let ϕ∈P⁡(M,g)\phi\in P(M,g) be such that eF=ωϕnω0ne^{F}={\omega_{\phi}^{n}\over\omega_{0}^{n}} with eF∈L2+s​(M,ω0),e^{F}\in L^{2+s}(M,\omega_{0}),\; for some s>0s>0. Then ‖ϕ‖0≤C5.21||\phi||_{0}\leq C_{5.21}, with C5.21C_{5.21} depending only on the metric ω0\omega_{0}, s>0s>0 and ‖eF‖L2+s​(M,ω0)||e^{F}||_{L^{2+s}(M,\omega_{0})}.

Note that this is a weaker result compared to the famous theorem of Kolodziej [25], which shows eF∈L1+s​(M,ω0)e^{F}\in L^{1+s}(M,\omega_{0}) is already sufficient. However, the weaker result as stated above can be proved in an elementary way using Alexandrov maximum principle, discovered by Blocki [2].

Combining Theorem 5.2 and Corollary 5.2, we immediately conclude:

[021G]
Corollary 5.4.

There exists a constant C5.2C_{5.2}, depending only on the background metric gg, the upper bound of ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g}, such that

F≤C5.2.F\leq C_{5.2}.
[021H]
Proof.

Choose Φ⁡(t)=t2+1\Phi(t)=\sqrt{t^{2}+1} and observe that ∫MeF​F2+1​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\sqrt{F^{2}+1}dvol_{g} is controlled in terms of an upper bound of ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g}. Then the result follows from Theorem 5.2 and Corollary 5.2. ∎

Now let’s prove Theorem 5.2.

[021I]
Proof.

(of Theorem 5.2) Let 0<ε<10<\varepsilon<1 be given and fixed. Let d0d_{0} be chosen as in the proof of Corollary 5.2. For any p∈Mp\in M, let ηp:M→ℝ+\eta_{p}:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+} be a cut-off function such that ηp​(p)=1\eta_{p}(p)=1, ηp≡1−θ\eta_{p}\equiv 1-\theta outside the ball Bd02​(p)B_{\frac{d_{0}}{2}}(p), with the estimate |∇ηp|2≤4​θ2d02|\nabla\eta_{p}|^{2}\leq\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}}, |∇2ηp|≤4​θd02|\nabla^{2}\eta_{p}|\leq\frac{4\theta}{d_{0}^{2}}. Here 0<θ<10<\theta<1 is to be determined later. Let δ>0\delta>0, λ>0\lambda>0 be constants to be determined. Assume the function eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)} achieves maximum at p0∈Mp_{0}\in M. We now compute

(5.9) Δφ​(eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​ηp0)=Δφ​(eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ))​ηp0+eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​Δφ​(ηp0)+eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​2​δ​∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)⋅∇φηp0=eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​ηp0​(δ2​|∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)|φ2+δ​Δφ​(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ))+eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​Δφ​(ηp0)+eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​2​δ​∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)⋅∇φηp0.\begin{split}&\Delta_{\varphi}\big(e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\eta_{p_{0}}\big)\\ &=\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)})\eta_{p_{0}}+e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\Delta_{\varphi}(\eta_{p_{0}})+e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}2\delta\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)\cdot\nabla_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}\\ &=e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\eta_{p_{0}}\big(\delta^{2}|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)|_{\varphi}^{2}+\delta\Delta_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)\big)\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad+e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\Delta_{\varphi}(\eta_{p_{0}})+e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}2\delta\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)\cdot\nabla_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}.\end{split}

First we can estimate

(5.10) eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)Δφ​ηp0≥−eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​|∇2ηp0|​t​rφ​g≥−eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​4​θd02​(1−θ)​ηp0​t​rφ​g.\begin{split}e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}&\Delta_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}\geq-e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}|\nabla^{2}\eta_{p_{0}}|tr_{\varphi}g\\ &\geq-e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\frac{4\theta}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}\eta_{p_{0}}tr_{\varphi}g.\end{split}
(5.11) 2​δ​∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)⋅∇φηp0≥−δ2​ηp0​|∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)|φ2−|∇φηp0|φ2ηp0≥−δ2​ηp0​|∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)|φ2−|∇ηp0|2​t​rφ​gηp0≥−δ2​ηp0​|∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)|φ2−4​θ2​t​rφ​gd02​(1−θ).\begin{split}&2\delta\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)\cdot\nabla_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}\geq-\delta^{2}\eta_{p_{0}}|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)|^{2}_{\varphi}-\frac{|\nabla_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}|_{\varphi}^{2}}{\eta_{p_{0}}}\\ &\geq-\delta^{2}\eta_{p_{0}}|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)|_{\varphi}^{2}-\frac{|\nabla\eta_{p_{0}}|^{2}tr_{\varphi}g}{\eta_{p_{0}}}\\ &\geq-\delta^{2}\eta_{p_{0}}|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)|_{\varphi}^{2}-\frac{4\theta^{2}tr_{\varphi}g}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}.\end{split}

Finally we compute

(5.12) Δφ​(CLOSEOPENF+ε​ψ−λ​φ)=−(R¯+λ​n)+t​rφ​R​i​c+λ​t​rφ​g+ε​Δφ​ψ≥(−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F))+(λ−ε−|R​i​c|)​t​rφ​g.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(&F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)=-(\underline{R}+\lambda n)+tr_{\varphi}Ric+\lambda tr_{\varphi}g+\varepsilon\Delta_{\varphi}\psi\\ &\geq(-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F))+(\lambda-\varepsilon-|Ric|)tr_{\varphi}g.\end{split}

Here AΦ=∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lgA_{\Phi}=\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}. In the above calculation, we noticed that

Δφ​ψ=gφi​j¯(gi​j¯+ψi​j¯)−t​rφ​g≥n​(det(gφi​j¯)​det(gi​j¯+ψi​j¯))1n−t​rφ​g=n​(e−F​eF​Φ​(F)​AΦ−1)1n−t​rφ​g.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}\psi=g_{\varphi}^{i\bar{j}}&(g_{i\bar{j}}+\psi_{i\bar{j}})-tr_{\varphi}g\geq n\big(\det(g_{\varphi}^{i\bar{j}})\det(g_{i\bar{j}}+\psi_{i\bar{j}})\big)^{\frac{1}{n}}-tr_{\varphi}g\\ &=n(e^{-F}e^{F}\Phi(F)A_{\Phi}^{-1})^{\frac{1}{n}}-tr_{\varphi}g.\end{split}

Plug (5.10), (5.11), (5.12) back into (5.9), we see

(5.13) Δφ(eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​ηp0)≥δ​ηp0​eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​(−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F))−eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​(δ​ηp0​(λ−ε−|R​i​c|)−4​θd02​(1−θ)​ηp0−4​θ2d02​(1−θ)2)​t​rφ​g.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}&\big(e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\eta_{p_{0}}\big)\geq\delta\eta_{p_{0}}e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}(-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F))\\ &-e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\big(\delta\eta_{p_{0}}(\lambda-\varepsilon-|Ric|)-\frac{4\theta}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}\eta_{p_{0}}-\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)^{2}}\big)tr_{\varphi}g.\end{split}

Now we choose various constants δ\delta, λ\lambda and θ\theta appearing above.

Since 0<ε<10<\varepsilon<1, first we choose λ=2​(1+maxM⁡|R​i​c|)\lambda=2(1+\max_{M}|Ric|). Then we fix λ\lambda, and choose δ\delta to be 2​n​δ​λ=α2n\delta\lambda=\alpha. We need to make sure the coefficient in front of t​rφ​gtr_{\varphi}g to be positive. This can be achieved by choosing θ\theta to be sufficiently small. Indeed, with above choice of δ\delta and λ\lambda, we may calculate:

(5.14) δ​ηp0​(λ−ε−|R​i​c|)−4​θ​ηp0d02​(1−θ)−4​θ2d02​(1−θ)2≥12​δ​(1−θ)​λ−4​θ​ηp0d02​(1−θ)−4​θ2d02​(1−θ)2≥(1−θ)​α4​n−4​θd02​(1−θ)−4​θ2d02​(1−θ)2.\begin{split}&\delta\eta_{p_{0}}(\lambda-\varepsilon-|Ric|)-\frac{4\theta\eta_{p_{0}}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}-\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)^{2}}\\ &\geq\frac{1}{2}\delta(1-\theta)\lambda-\frac{4\theta\eta_{p_{0}}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}-\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)^{2}}\geq\frac{(1-\theta)\alpha}{4n}-\frac{4\theta}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}-\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)^{2}}.\end{split}

Hence if we choose θ\theta small enough, above ≥0\geq 0. After we made all the choices of δ\delta, λ\lambda, θ\theta, we obtain from (5.13) that

(5.15) Δφ​(eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​ηp0)≥δ​ηp0​eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​(−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F)).\Delta_{\varphi}\big(e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\eta_{p_{0}})\geq\delta\eta_{p_{0}}e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}(-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F)).

Denote u=eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)u=e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}. Now we are ready to apply Alexandroff estimate in Bd0​(p0)B_{d_{0}}(p_{0}):

(5.16) supBd0​(p0)u​ηp0≤sup∂Bd0​(p0)u​ηp0+Cn​d0​(∫Bd0​(p0)u2​n​((−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F))−)2​ne−2​F​dv​o​lg)12​n.\begin{split}\sup_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}&u\eta_{p_{0}}\leq\sup_{\partial B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}u\eta_{p_{0}}\\ &+C_{n}d_{0}\bigg(\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}\frac{u^{2n}\big((-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F))^{-}\big)^{2n}}{e^{-2F}}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2n}}.\end{split}

We want to claim the integral appearing on the right hand side is bounded. Indeed, the function been integrated is nonzero only if

−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F)<0.-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F)<0.

By the coercivity of Φ\Phi, this will imply an upper bound for FF, say F≤C5.3F\leq C_{5.3}, where the constant C5.3C_{5.3} depends on ε\varepsilon, the choice of Φ\Phi, the integral bound AΦA_{\Phi}, and the background metric gg. With this observation, we see

(5.17) ∫Bd0​(p0)u2​n​((−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F))−)2​ne−2​F​𝑑v​o​lg≤∫Bd0(p0)∩{F≤C5.3}e2​n​δ​(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)e2​F(|R¯|+λn)2​ndvolg≤(|R¯|+λ​n)2​n​e(2​n​δ+2)​C5.3​∫Bd0​(p0)e2​n​δ​ε​ψ−2​n​δ​λ​φ​dv​o​lg.\begin{split}&\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}\frac{u^{2n}\big((-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F))^{-}\big)^{2n}}{e^{-2F}}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})\cap\{F\leq C_{5.3}\}}e^{2n\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}e^{2F}(|\underline{R}|+\lambda n)^{2n}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq(|\underline{R}|+\lambda n)^{2n}e^{(2n\delta+2)C_{5.3}}\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}e^{2n\delta\varepsilon\psi-2n\delta\lambda\varphi}dvol_{g}.\end{split}

But recall ψ≤0\psi\leq 0, and 2​n​δ​λ=α2n\delta\lambda=\alpha, we know

(5.18) ∫Bd0​(p0)e2​n​δ​ε​ψ−2​n​δ​λ​φ​𝑑v​o​lg≤∫Bd0​(p0)e−α​φ​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5.4.\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}e^{2n\delta\varepsilon\psi-2n\delta\lambda\varphi}dvol_{g}\leq\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}e^{-\alpha\varphi}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5.4}.

Denote I=(|R¯|+λ​n)2​n​e(2​n​δ+2)​C5.3​∫Bd0​(p0)e−α​φ​𝑑v​o​lgI=(|\underline{R}|+\lambda n)^{2n}e^{(2n\delta+2)C_{5.3}}\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}e^{-\alpha\varphi}dvol_{g}. Now we go back to (5.16) and obtain:

(5.19) u⁡(p0)=supMu≤(1−θ)​supMu+Cn​d0​I12​n.u(p_{0})=\sup_{M}u\leq(1-\theta)\sup_{M}u+C_{n}d_{0}I^{\frac{1}{2n}}.

Here we recall that ηp0≡1−θ\eta_{p_{0}}\equiv 1-\theta on ∂Bd0​(p0)\partial B_{d_{0}}(p_{0}). This implies supMu≤Cn​d0​I12​nθ\sup_{M}u\leq\frac{C_{n}d_{0}I^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{\theta}. ∎

[021J]
Lemma 5.5.

Alexandroff maximum principle (c.f. [21], Lemma 9.3)
Let Ω⊂ℝd\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d} be a bounded domain. Suppose u∈C2​(Ω)∩C⁡(Ω¯)u\in C^{2}(\Omega)\cap C(\bar{\Omega}). Denote M=supΩu−sup∂ΩuM=\sup_{\Omega}u-\sup_{\partial\Omega}u. Define

(5.20) Γ−(u,Ω)={x∈Ω:u⁡(y)≤u⁡(x)+∇u​(x)⋅(y−x),for any y∈Ω and |∇u(x)|≤M3​d​i​a​m​Ω}.\begin{split}\Gamma^{-}(u,\Omega)=\{&x\in\Omega:u(y)\leq u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot(y-x),\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\,\,\textrm{for any $y\in\Omega$ and }|\nabla u(x)|\leq\frac{M}{3diam\Omega}\}.\end{split}

Then for some dimensional constant Cd>0C_{d}>0:

M≤Cd​(∫Γ−​(u,Ω)det(−D2​u)​𝑑x)1d.M\leq C_{d}\bigg(\int_{\Gamma^{-}(u,\Omega)}\det(-D^{2}u)dx\bigg)^{\frac{1}{d}}.

In particular, suppose uu satisfies ai​j​∂i​ju≥fa_{ij}\partial_{ij}u\geq f. Here ai​ja_{ij} satisfies the ellipticity condition ai​j​ξi​ξj≥0a_{ij}\xi_{i}\xi_{j}\geq 0. Define D∗=(detai​j)1dD^{*}=(\det a_{ij})^{\frac{1}{d}}. Then the following estimate holds:

(5.21) M≤Cd′​d​i​a​m​Ω​‖f−D∗‖Ld​(Ω).M\leq C_{d}^{\prime}\,diam\,\Omega||\frac{f^{-}}{D^{*}}||_{L^{d}(\Omega)}.

Here Cd′C_{d}^{\prime} is another dimensional constant.

[021K]
Remark 5.6.

In this section (Proof of Theorem 5.2 and Lemma 5.3), we apply this estimate with d=2​nd=2n to the operator Δφ\Delta_{\varphi}. After rewriting Δφ\Delta_{\varphi} in terms of real coefficients, one can find D∗=(det(gφ)i​j¯)−1n=e−Fn​(detgi​j¯)−1nD^{*}=\big(\det(g_{\varphi})_{i\bar{j}}\big)^{-\frac{1}{n}}=e^{-\frac{F}{n}}\big(\det g_{i\bar{j}}\big)^{-\frac{1}{n}}.

Finally, we want to give a proof to Theorem 5.1.

[021L]
Proof.

It is well known that in a given Kähler class, cscK metrics is global minimizer of the K-energy functional, by the main result of [1]. In particular, it follows that the K energy functional of φ\varphi is a priori bounded from above. Recall the decomposition formula for K energy functional EE, proved in [7]:

(5.22) K⁡(φ)=∫Mlog⁡ωφnω0n​ωφnn!+J−R​i​c​(φ).K(\varphi)=\int_{M}\log\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{\omega_{0}^{n}}\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{n!}+J_{-Ric}(\varphi).

In the above, J−R​i​cJ_{-Ric} is defined in terms of its derivative, namely

d​J−R​i​cd​t=∫M∂φ∂t​(−t​rφ​R​i​c+R¯)​ωφnn!.\frac{dJ_{-Ric}}{dt}=\int_{M}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}(-tr_{\varphi}Ric+\underline{R})\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{n!}.

It is well known in the literature that J−R​i​cJ_{-Ric} can be bounded in terms of C0C^{0} norm of the potential function φ.\varphi.\; A bound for ∫MeF​|F|​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}|F|dvol_{g} follows from here.

Now we prove the second part of the theorem. First Corollary 5.4 gives a bound for FF from above and Corollary 5.2 gives a bound for ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}. Proposition 2.1 gives a bound for FF from below. ∎

[021M]

6. Some local estimates

In this section, we show some localized version of our previous estimates. Suppose we have a solution φ\varphi to (1.1), (1.2) in the unit ball B1​(0)⊂ℂnB_{1}(0)\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}. First we can find a potential ρ\rho to the background metric gg, namely

ω0=−1​∂∂¯​ρ, in B1​(0).\omega_{0}=\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}\rho,\textrm{ in $B_{1}(0)$.}

Denote ϕ=φ+ρ\phi=\varphi+\rho, G=F+logdetgi​j¯G=F+\log\det g_{i\bar{j}}, then the equation (1.1), (1.2) can be rewritten as:

(6.1) detϕi​j¯=eG,\displaystyle\det\phi_{i\bar{j}}=e^{G},
(6.2) Δϕ​G=−R¯.\displaystyle\Delta_{\phi}G=-\underline{R}.

In the above, Δϕ=ϕi​j¯∂i​j¯\Delta_{\phi}=\phi^{i\bar{j}}\partial_{i\bar{j}}. In the following, we show that if Δ​ϕ∈Lp​(B1​(0))\Delta\phi\in L^{p}(B_{1}(0)), and ∑i1ϕi​i¯∈Lp​(B1​(0))\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}\in L^{p}(B_{1}(0)) for pp sufficiently large depending only on dimension nn, then we have 1C≤ϕi​j¯≤C\frac{1}{C}\leq\phi_{i\bar{j}}\leq C, for some constant CC. More precisely,

[021N]
Proposition 6.1.

Let ϕ\phi be a smooth pluri-subharmonic solution to (6.1), (6.2) in B1​(0)⊂ℂnB_{1}(0)\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}, such that Δ​ϕ∈Lp​(B1​(0))\Delta\phi\in L^{p}(B_{1}(0)) and ∑i1ϕi​i¯∈Lp​(B1​(0))\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}\in L^{p}(B_{1}(0)) for some p>3​n​(n−1)p>3n(n-1). Then there exists a constant C6C_{6}, depending only on pp, ‖Δ​ϕ‖Lp​(B1​(0))||\Delta\phi||_{L^{p}(B_{1}(0))}, ‖∑i1ϕi​i¯‖Lp​(B1​(0))||\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}||_{L^{p}(B_{1}(0))}, such that 1C6≤ϕi​j¯≤C6\frac{1}{C_{6}}\leq\phi_{i\bar{j}}\leq C_{6}, |∇G|≤C6|\nabla G|\leq C_{6} in B12​(0)B_{\frac{1}{2}}(0).

By the same argument in (1.2), we have the following corollary:

[021P]
Corollary 6.2.

Under the assumption of Proposition 6.1, for any 0<θ<10<\theta<1, we have ‖Dk​ϕ‖0,Bθ≤C⁡(k)||D^{k}\phi||_{0,B_{\theta}}\leq C(k), for any k≥2k\geq 2. Here C⁡(k)C(k) has the same dependence as described in Proposition 6.1 besides dependence on θ\theta and on ‖ϕ‖0,B1||\phi||_{0,B_{1}}.

Now we prove Proposition 6.1, using Lemma 6.3 stated and proved later.

[021Q]
Proof.

(of Proposition 6.1)First we want to get boundedness of GG, using the second equation. We can write the second equation as

(6.3) det(ϕα​β¯)​ϕi​j¯​∂i​j¯G=eG​G.\det(\phi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})\phi^{i\bar{j}}\partial_{i\bar{j}}G=e^{G}G.

which is equivalent to:

(6.4) R​e​(∂i(det(ϕα​β¯)​ϕi​j¯​∂j¯G))=eG​G.Re\big(\partial_{i}(\det(\phi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})\phi^{i\bar{j}}\partial_{\bar{j}}G)\big)=e^{G}G.

Denote ai​j¯=det(ϕα​β¯)​ϕi​j¯a_{i\bar{j}}=\det(\phi_{\alpha\bar{\beta}})\phi^{i\bar{j}}, which is a hermitian matrix, then for some constant cn>0c_{n}>0, we have

(6.5) 1cn​(∑i1ϕi​i¯)n−1​I≤ai​j¯≤cn​(Δ​ϕ)n−1​I.\frac{1}{c_{n}\big(\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}\big)^{n-1}}I\leq a_{i\bar{j}}\leq c_{n}(\Delta\phi)^{n-1}I.

The left hand side of (6.4) is a real elliptic operator in divergence form, which satisfies an ellipticity condition same as (6.5). We wish to apply Lemma 6.3 to the equation (6.4). Using (6.5), we can take λ=(Δ​ϕ+∑i1ϕi​i¯)n−1\lambda=\big(\Delta\phi+\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}\big)^{n-1}, and f=eG​Gf=e^{G}G. In order to apply Lemma 6.3, we need to show (Δ​ϕ)n−1,(∑i1ϕi​i¯)n−1∈Lp​(B1)(\Delta\phi)^{n-1},\,(\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}})^{n-1}\in L^{p}(B_{1}), and eG​G∈Lp/2​(B1)e^{G}G\in L^{p/2}(B_{1}) for some p>3​np>3n. The desired integrability for Δ​ϕ\Delta\phi and ∑i1ϕi​i¯\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}} is clear from assumption, while for eG​Ge^{G}G, since eG≤(Δ​ϕ)ne^{G}\leq(\Delta\phi)^{n}, we just need to make sure (Δ​ϕ)n∈Lp′(\Delta\phi)^{n}\in L^{p^{\prime}} for some p′>3​n2p^{\prime}>\frac{3n}{2}. This is again clear from our assumption on Δ​ϕ\Delta\phi. So we can apply Lemma 6.3 to conclude GG is bounded(with the said dependence) on any interior ball of B1B_{1}. In the following we assume GG is bounded on B1B_{1} without loss of generality.

The estimate for Δ​ϕ\Delta\phi is really similar to our calculation in section 4, so we will be suitably brief here.

Choose any point pp and we can do a unitary coordinate transform so that ϕi​j¯​(p)=ϕi​i¯​(p)​δi​j\phi_{i\bar{j}}(p)=\phi_{i\bar{i}}(p)\delta_{ij}. We can compute

(6.6) Δϕ​(|∇ϕG|2)=1ϕi​i¯​ϕα​α¯​|ϕi​α−∑pϕi​α​p¯​Gpϕp​p¯|2+|Gp​i¯|2ϕi​i¯​ϕp​p¯−Gq​p¯​Gp​Gq¯ϕp​p¯​ϕq​q¯.\Delta_{\phi}(|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2})=\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}\phi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}}|\phi_{i\alpha}-\sum_{p}\frac{\phi_{i\alpha\bar{p}}G_{p}}{\phi_{p\bar{p}}}|^{2}+\frac{|G_{p\bar{i}}|^{2}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}\phi_{p\bar{p}}}-\frac{G_{q\bar{p}}G_{p}G_{\bar{q}}}{\phi_{p\bar{p}}\phi_{q\bar{q}}}.

Here |∇ϕG|2=ϕp​q¯​Gp​Gq¯|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}=\phi^{p\bar{q}}G_{p}G_{\bar{q}}.

(6.7) Δϕ​(e12​G​|∇ϕG|2)=Δϕ​(e12​G)​|∇ϕG|2+e12​G​Δϕ​(|∇ϕG|2)+12​e12​G​Gi​(|∇ϕG|2)i¯+Gi¯​(|∇ϕG|2)iϕi​i¯.\Delta_{\phi}(e^{\frac{1}{2}G}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2})=\Delta_{\phi}(e^{\frac{1}{2}G})|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}+e^{\frac{1}{2}G}\Delta_{\phi}(|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2})+\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}G}\frac{G_{i}(|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2})_{\bar{i}}+G_{\bar{i}}(|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2})_{i}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}.

One can also compute

(6.8) Gi​(|∇ϕG|2)i¯ϕi​i¯=Gi​Gpϕi​i¯​ϕp​p¯​(Gp¯​i¯−∑tϕt​q¯​i¯​Gt¯ϕt​t¯)+Gp​i¯​Gp¯​Giϕp​p¯​ϕi​i¯.\frac{G_{i}(|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2})_{\bar{i}}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}=\frac{G_{i}G_{p}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}\phi_{p\bar{p}}}(G_{\bar{p}\bar{i}}-\sum_{t}\frac{\phi_{t\bar{q}\bar{i}}G_{\bar{t}}}{\phi_{t\bar{t}}})+\frac{G_{p\bar{i}}G_{\bar{p}}G_{i}}{\phi_{p\bar{p}}\phi_{i\bar{i}}}.

Combining (6.6), (6.7), (6.8), we obtain

(6.9) Δϕ​(e12​G​|∇ϕG|2)​e−12​G=−12​R¯​|∇ϕG|2+1ϕi​i¯​ϕα​α¯​|Gi​α−∑pϕi​α​p¯​Gpϕp​p¯−12​ϕi​ϕα|2+|Gp​i¯|2ϕi​i¯​ϕp​p¯.\Delta_{\phi}(e^{\frac{1}{2}G}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2})e^{-\frac{1}{2}G}=-\frac{1}{2}\underline{R}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}+\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}\phi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}}}|G_{i\alpha}-\sum_{p}\frac{\phi_{i\alpha\bar{p}}G_{p}}{\phi_{p\bar{p}}}-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{i}\phi_{\alpha}|^{2}+\frac{|G_{p\bar{i}}|^{2}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}\phi_{p\bar{p}}}.

Also we can compute

(6.10) Δϕ​(Δ​ϕ)=|ϕi​j¯​p|2ϕi​i¯​ϕj​j¯+Δ​G.\Delta_{\phi}(\Delta\phi)=\frac{|\phi_{i\bar{j}p}|^{2}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}\phi_{j\bar{j}}}+\Delta G.

Hence

(6.11) Δϕ(e12​G​|∇ϕG|2+Δ​ϕ)≥−12​R¯​e12​G​|∇ϕG|2+|Gp​i¯|2​e12​Gϕi​i¯​ϕp​p¯+Δ​G≥−12​R¯​e12​G​|∇ϕG|2+e12​G​Gi​i¯2ϕi​i¯2−12​Gi​i¯2​e12​Gϕi​i¯2−12​(Δ​ϕ)2​e−12​G.\begin{split}\Delta_{\phi}&(e^{\frac{1}{2}G}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}+\Delta\phi)\geq-\frac{1}{2}\underline{R}e^{\frac{1}{2}G}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}+\frac{|G_{p\bar{i}}|^{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}G}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}\phi_{p\bar{p}}}+\Delta G\\ &\geq-\frac{1}{2}\underline{R}e^{\frac{1}{2}G}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}+\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}G}G_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{G_{i\bar{i}}^{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}G}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}(\Delta\phi)^{2}e^{-\frac{1}{2}G}.\end{split}

In the last inequality above, we noticed

Δ​G=∑iGi​i¯≤12​Gi​i¯2​e12​Gϕi​i¯2+12​∑iϕi​i¯2​e−12​G≤12​Gi​i¯2​e12​Gϕi​i¯2+12​(Δ​ϕ)2​e−12​G.\Delta G=\sum_{i}G_{i\bar{i}}\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{G_{i\bar{i}}^{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}G}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\phi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}e^{-\frac{1}{2}G}\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{G_{i\bar{i}}^{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}G}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}(\Delta\phi)^{2}e^{-\frac{1}{2}G}.

Denote u=e12​G​|∇ϕG|2+Δ​ϕu=e^{\frac{1}{2}G}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}+\Delta\phi, then we know

(6.12) Δϕ​(u)≥−(12​R¯+12​Δ​ϕ​e−12​G)​u.\Delta_{\phi}(u)\geq-(\frac{1}{2}\underline{R}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta\phi e^{-\frac{1}{2}G})u.

Denote f=12​R¯+12​Δ​ϕ​e−12​Gf=\frac{1}{2}\underline{R}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta\phi e^{-\frac{1}{2}G}. Recall that we now already know GG is bounded. Our assumption implies f∈Lpf\in L^{p} for some p>3​np>3n. Hence we may invoke Lemma 6.3 to get the desired result. ∎

As a direct consequence of above argument, we can now prove Corollary 1.5.

[021R]
Proof.

(of Corollary 1.5) Define F=logdetuα​β¯F=\log\det u_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}, first we show that FF is a constant. By the assumption, we can take a sequence of rs→∞r_{s}\rightarrow\infty, and a constant MM, such that

(6.13) sups≥11rs2​n​∫Brs​(0)(Δ​u)p+(∑k1uk​k¯)p≤M.\sup_{s\geq 1}\frac{1}{r_{s}^{2n}}\int_{B_{r_{s}}(0)}(\Delta u)^{p}+\big(\sum_{k}\frac{1}{u_{k\bar{k}}}\big)^{p}\leq M.

Define us​(z)=1rs2​u​(rs​z)u_{s}(z)=\frac{1}{r_{s}^{2}}u(r_{s}z). Let Δs:=usi​j¯∂i​j¯\Delta_{s}:=u_{s}^{i\bar{j}}\partial_{i\bar{j}}, the Laplace operator in ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n} defined by the metric −1​∂∂¯​us\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}u_{s}. Also we denote Fs:=logdet∂α​β¯usF_{s}:=\log\det\partial_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{s}, then Fs​(z)=F⁡(rs​z)F_{s}(z)=F(r_{s}z). Hence Δs​Fs=0\Delta_{s}F_{s}=0 in B1​(0)B_{1}(0), and (6.13) implies

(6.14) sups≥1∫B1(Δ​us)p+(∑k1(us)k​k¯)p≤M.\sup_{s\geq 1}\int_{B_{1}}(\Delta u_{s})^{p}+\big(\sum_{k}\frac{1}{(u_{s})_{k\bar{k}}}\big)^{p}\leq M.

Proposition 6.1 shows that there exists a positive constant C7C_{7}, independent of ss, such that 1C7≤(us)i​j¯≤C7\frac{1}{C_{7}}\leq(u_{s})_{i\bar{j}}\leq C_{7} and |∇Fs|≤C7|\nabla F_{s}|\leq C_{7} in B12​(0)B_{\frac{1}{2}}(0). Rescaling back, we find that |∇F|≤C7rs|\nabla F|\leq\frac{C_{7}}{r_{s}} in B12​rs​(0)B_{\frac{1}{2}r_{s}}(0). Sending s→∞s\rightarrow\infty, we get ∇F≡0\nabla F\equiv 0 on ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n}. Namely we have det∂α​β¯us=c\det\partial_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}u_{s}=c for some c>0c>0 on B1B_{1}. Then we may use Evans-Krylov theorem to conclude for some α>0\alpha>0

supk[−1​∂∂¯​us]α,B14≤M1.\sup_{k}[\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}u_{s}]_{\alpha,B_{\frac{1}{4}}}\leq M_{1}.

In terms of uu, this implies

rsα​|ui​j¯​(z1)−ui​j¯​(z2)||z1−z2|α≤M, for any z1,z2∈Brs4​(0).r_{s}^{\alpha}\frac{|u_{i\bar{j}}(z_{1})-u_{i\bar{j}}(z_{2})|}{|z_{1}-z_{2}|^{\alpha}}\leq M,\textrm{ for any $z_{1},\,z_{2}\in B_{\frac{r_{s}}{4}}(0)$.}

Letting s→∞s\rightarrow\infty, we obtain ui​j¯​(z1)=ui​j¯​(z2)u_{i\bar{j}}(z_{1})=u_{i\bar{j}}(z_{2}), for any z1,z2∈ℂnz_{1},\,z_{2}\in\mathbb{C}^{n}. This implies the Levi Hessian of uu is constant. ∎

The following is a technical lemma which we used in the proof of Proposition 6.1. The way to prove it is the standard Moser’s iteration and may have existed in literature but we were not able to find the exactly reference, so we include a proof here.

[021S]
Lemma 6.3.

Suppose u≥0u\geq 0 satisfies in B1⊂ℝdB_{1}\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}:

∂i(ai​j​∂ju)≥f​u+g.\partial_{i}\big(a^{ij}\partial_{j}u\big)\geq fu+g.

Here 1λ⁡(x)≤ai​j​(x)≤λ⁡(x)\frac{1}{\lambda(x)}\leq a^{ij}(x)\leq\lambda(x), with λ⁡(x)∈Lp​(B1)\lambda(x)\in L^{p}(B_{1}), f,g∈Lp/2​(B1)f,\,g\in L^{p/2}(B_{1}) for some p>3​d2p>\frac{3d}{2}, then there exists a constant CC, depending on pp, ‖λ‖Lp​(B1)||\lambda||_{L^{p}(B_{1})}, ‖f‖Lp/2​(B1)||f||_{L^{p/2}(B_{1})}, ‖g‖Lp/2​(B1)||g||_{L^{p/2}(B_{1})}, such that

supB12u≤C⁡(‖u‖L1​(B1)+1).\sup_{B_{\frac{1}{2}}}u\leq C(||u||_{L^{1}(B_{1})}+1).
[021T]
Proof.

The proof follows the same argument as the uniformly elliptic case. From the inequality we know that for any ζ∈Cc∞​(B1)\zeta\in C_{c}^{\infty}(B_{1}), with ζ≥0\zeta\geq 0, the following holds:

(6.15) ∫B1ai​j​∂ju​∂iζ​𝑑x≤∫B1f​u​ζ+g​ζ​𝑑x.\int_{B_{1}}a^{ij}\partial_{j}u\partial_{i}\zeta dx\leq\int_{B_{1}}fu\zeta+g\zeta dx.

Now let η∈Cc∞​(B1)\eta\in C^{\infty}_{c}(B_{1}), define u¯=u+1\bar{u}=u+1. Take ζ=η2​u¯β\zeta=\eta^{2}\bar{u}^{\beta}, for some β>0\beta>0. We plug in this ζ\zeta and obtain

(6.16) ∫B1βai​j∂iu¯∂ju¯u¯β−1η2≤∫−ai​j∂ju∂iηu¯β2η+|f|u¯β+1η2+|g|u¯βη2≤∫B1β2​ai​j​∂iu¯​∂ju¯​u¯β−1​η2+4β​ai​j​∂iη​∂jη​u¯β+1+(|f|+|g|)​u¯β+1​η2.\begin{split}\int_{B_{1}}&\beta a_{ij}\partial_{i}\bar{u}\partial_{j}\bar{u}\bar{u}^{\beta-1}\eta^{2}\leq\int-a_{ij}\partial_{j}u\partial_{i}\eta\bar{u}^{\beta}2\eta+|f|\bar{u}^{\beta+1}\eta^{2}+|g|\bar{u}^{\beta}\eta^{2}\\ &\leq\int_{B_{1}}\frac{\beta}{2}a_{ij}\partial_{i}\bar{u}\partial_{j}\bar{u}\bar{u}^{\beta-1}\eta^{2}+\frac{4}{\beta}a_{ij}\partial_{i}\eta\partial_{j}\eta\bar{u}^{\beta+1}+(|f|+|g|)\bar{u}^{\beta+1}\eta^{2}.\end{split}

Use the ellipticity condition to get:

(6.17) ∫B1βλ​|∇u¯|2​u¯β−1​η2≤∫B1(4​λβ​|∇η|2+|f|​η2+|g|​η2)​u¯β+1.\int_{B_{1}}\frac{\beta}{\lambda}|\nabla\bar{u}|^{2}\bar{u}^{\beta-1}\eta^{2}\leq\int_{B_{1}}\big(\frac{4\lambda}{\beta}|\nabla\eta|^{2}+|f|\eta^{2}+|g|\eta^{2}\big)\bar{u}^{\beta+1}.

This is equivalent to:

(6.18) ∫B1|∇(u¯β+12)|2​η2​1λ≤(β+1)2β2​∫B1λ​|∇η|2​u¯β+1+(β+1)24​β​∫B1(|f|+|g|)​u¯β+1​η2.\int_{B_{1}}|\nabla(\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}})|^{2}\eta^{2}\frac{1}{\lambda}\leq\frac{(\beta+1)^{2}}{\beta^{2}}\int_{B_{1}}\lambda|\nabla\eta|^{2}\bar{u}^{\beta+1}+\frac{(\beta+1)^{2}}{4\beta}\int_{B_{1}}(|f|+|g|)\bar{u}^{\beta+1}\eta^{2}.

Next observe

|∇(u¯β+12​η)|2≤2​|∇(u¯β+12)|2​η2+2​u¯β+1​|∇η|2.|\nabla(\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta)|^{2}\leq 2|\nabla(\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}})|^{2}\eta^{2}+2\bar{u}^{\beta+1}|\nabla\eta|^{2}.

Hence it follows from (6.18) that if β≥1\beta\geq 1,

(6.19) ∫B1|∇(u¯β+12​η)|2​1λ≤∫B1(2​λ​(β+1)2β2+2λ)​u¯β+1​|∇η|2+(β+1)22​β​∫B1(|f|+|g|)​u¯β+1​η2≤∫B110​λ​u¯β+1​|∇η|2+2​β​∫B1(|f|+|g|)​u¯β+1​η2.\begin{split}\int_{B_{1}}|\nabla(\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta)|^{2}\frac{1}{\lambda}&\leq\int_{B_{1}}\big(\frac{2\lambda(\beta+1)^{2}}{\beta^{2}}+\frac{2}{\lambda}\big)\bar{u}^{\beta+1}|\nabla\eta|^{2}+\frac{(\beta+1)^{2}}{2\beta}\int_{B_{1}}(|f|+|g|)\bar{u}^{\beta+1}\eta^{2}\\ &\leq\int_{B_{1}}10\lambda\bar{u}^{\beta+1}|\nabla\eta|^{2}+2\beta\int_{B_{1}}(|f|+|g|)\bar{u}^{\beta+1}\eta^{2}.\end{split}

We would like to get rid of the λ\lambda in the above estimate. Let ε>0\varepsilon>0 to be determined, then we have

(6.20) ‖∇(u¯β+12​η)‖L2−ε2≤‖λ‖L2ε−12−ε2​∫B11λ​|∇(u¯β+12​η)|2.||\nabla(\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta)||_{L^{2-\varepsilon}}^{2}\leq||\lambda||_{L^{\frac{2}{\varepsilon}-1}}^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{2}}\int_{B_{1}}\frac{1}{\lambda}|\nabla(\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta)|^{2}.

On the other hand, we estimate the right hand side by Hölder’s inequality:

(6.21) ∫B1λ​u¯β+1​|∇η|2≤‖λ‖L2ε−1​‖u¯β+12​|∇η|‖L2−ε1−ε2,\displaystyle\int_{B_{1}}\lambda\bar{u}^{\beta+1}|\nabla\eta|^{2}\leq||\lambda||_{L^{\frac{2}{\varepsilon}-1}}||\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}|\nabla\eta|||_{L^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}}}^{2},
(6.22) ∫B1(|f|+|g|)​u¯β+1​η2≤(‖f‖Lp/2+||g||Lp/2)||u¯β+12​η||L2​pp−22.\displaystyle\int_{B_{1}}(|f|+|g|)\bar{u}^{\beta+1}\eta^{2}\leq\big(||f||_{L^{p/2}}+||g||_{L^{p/2}}\big)||\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta||_{L^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}}^{2}.

Therefore,

(6.23) ‖∇(u¯β+12​η)‖L2−ε2≤||λ||L2ε−12−ε2​(10​||λ||L2ε−1​‖u¯β+12​|∇η|‖L2−ε1−ε2+2​β​(‖f‖Lp/2+||g||Lp/2)|​|u¯β+12​η||L2​pp−22).||\nabla(\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta)||_{L^{2-\varepsilon}}^{2}\leq||\lambda||_{L^{\frac{2}{\varepsilon}-1}}^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{2}}\big(10||\lambda||_{L^{\frac{2}{\varepsilon}-1}}||\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}|\nabla\eta|||^{2}_{L^{\frac{2-\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}}}+2\beta(||f||_{L^{p/2}}+||g||_{L^{p/2}})||\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta||_{L^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}}^{2}\big).

Now we choose ε=2p+1\varepsilon=\frac{2}{p+1}, then 2ε−1=p\frac{2}{\varepsilon}-1=p. With this choice, we have 2−ε1−ε<2​pp−2\frac{2-\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}<\frac{2p}{p-2} in the above, then we find for some constant C6.1C_{6.1}, depending on ‖λ‖Lp||\lambda||_{L^{p}}, ‖f‖Lp/2||f||_{L^{p/2}}, ‖g‖Lp/2||g||_{L^{p/2}}, such that

(6.24) ‖∇(u¯β+12​η)‖L2​pp+12≤C6.1​(‖u¯β+12​|∇η|‖L2​pp−22+β​‖u¯β+12​η‖L2​pp−22).||\nabla(\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta)||_{L^{\frac{2p}{p+1}}}^{2}\leq C_{6.1}\big(||\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}|\nabla\eta|||^{2}_{L^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}}+\beta||\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\eta||_{L^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}}^{2}\big).

Fix 12≤r<R≤1\frac{1}{2}\leq r<R\leq 1, Denote ri=r+2−i​(R−r)r_{i}=r+2^{-i}(R-r), for i≥0i\geq 0. Note that r0=Rr_{0}=R, and ri→rr_{i}\rightarrow r as i→∞i\rightarrow\infty. We choose the cut-off function η\eta so that 0≤η≤10\leq\eta\leq 1, η≡1\eta\equiv 1 on Bri+1B_{r_{i+1}}, s​u​p​p​η⊂Brisupp\,\eta\subset B_{r_{i}}, and |∇η|≤2ri−ri+1=2i+2R−r|\nabla\eta|\leq\frac{2}{r_{i}-r_{i+1}}=\frac{2^{i+2}}{R-r}. Denote θ\theta to be such that 1θ=p+12​p−1d\frac{1}{\theta}=\frac{p+1}{2p}-\frac{1}{d}. Since p>3​d2p>\frac{3d}{2}, it follows that θ>2​pp−2\theta>\frac{2p}{p-2}. Then apply the Sobolev inequality to get

(6.25) ‖u¯β+12‖Lθ​(Bri+1)≤C6.2​β​2i+2R−r​‖u¯β+12‖L2​pp−2​(Bri).||\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}||_{L^{\theta}(B_{r_{i+1}})}\leq\frac{C_{6.2}\sqrt{\beta}2^{i+2}}{R-r}||\bar{u}^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}||_{L^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}(B_{r_{i}})}.

This is equivalent to:

(6.26) ‖u¯‖Lθ⁡(β+1)2​(Bri+1)≤C6.22β+1​β1β+1​22​(i+2)β+1(R−r)2β+1​‖u¯‖L2​pp−2⋅β+12​(Bri).||\bar{u}||_{L^{\frac{\theta(\beta+1)}{2}}(B_{r_{i+1}})}\leq\frac{C_{6.2}^{\frac{2}{\beta+1}}\beta^{\frac{1}{\beta+1}}2^{\frac{2(i+2)}{\beta+1}}}{(R-r)^{\frac{2}{\beta+1}}}||\bar{u}||_{L^{\frac{2p}{p-2}\cdot\frac{\beta+1}{2}}(B_{r_{i}})}.

Now denote θ=χ⋅2​pp−2\theta=\chi\cdot\frac{2p}{p-2} for some χ>1\chi>1, and choose β\beta to be β+12=χi\frac{\beta+1}{2}=\chi^{i}, then we obtain from (6.26):

(6.27) ‖u¯‖L2​p​χi+1p−2​(Bri+1)≤(2​C6.2R−r)1χi​χiχi​2i+2χi​‖u¯‖L2​p​χip−2​(Bri), for i≥0.||\bar{u}||_{L^{\frac{2p\chi^{i+1}}{p-2}}(B_{r_{i+1}})}\leq\big(\frac{2C_{6.2}}{R-r}\big)^{\frac{1}{\chi^{i}}}\chi^{\frac{i}{\chi^{i}}}2^{\frac{i+2}{\chi^{i}}}||\bar{u}||_{L^{\frac{2p\chi^{i}}{p-2}}(B_{r_{i}})},\textrm{ for $i\geq 0$.}

Iterating this inequality we obtain for any 12≤r<R≤1\frac{1}{2}\leq r<R\leq 1, and for some constant C6.3C_{6.3} independent of rr, RR,

(6.28) ‖u¯‖L∞​(Br)≤C6.3(R−r)∑i≥0χ−i​‖u¯‖L2​pp−2​(BR)=C6.3(R−r)χχ−1||u¯||L2​pp−2​(BR)≤C6.3(R−r)χχ−1​‖u¯‖L1​(BR)p−22​p​‖u¯‖L∞​(BR)p+22​p≤12​‖u¯‖L∞​(BR)+2p+2p−2​C6.32​pp−2(R−r)2​χ​p(χ−1)​(p−2)||u¯||L1​(BR).\begin{split}&||\bar{u}||_{L^{\infty}(B_{r})}\leq\frac{C_{6.3}}{(R-r)^{\sum_{i\geq 0}\chi^{-i}}}||\bar{u}||_{L^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}(B_{R})}=\frac{C_{6.3}}{(R-r)^{\frac{\chi}{\chi-1}}}||\bar{u}||_{L^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}(B_{R})}\\ &\leq\frac{C_{6.3}}{(R-r)^{\frac{\chi}{\chi-1}}}||\bar{u}||_{L^{1}(B_{R})}^{\frac{p-2}{2p}}||\bar{u}||_{L^{\infty}(B_{R})}^{\frac{p+2}{2p}}\leq\frac{1}{2}||\bar{u}||_{L^{\infty}(B_{R})}+\frac{2^{\frac{p+2}{p-2}}C_{6.3}^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}}{(R-r)^{\frac{2\chi p}{(\chi-1)(p-2)}}}||\bar{u}||_{L^{1}(B_{R})}.\end{split}

The desired conclusion now follows from the following lemma applied to f⁡(r)=‖u¯‖L∞​(Br)f(r)=||\bar{u}||_{L^{\infty}(B_{r})}, which is a special case of Lemma 4.3 in [22]. ∎

[021U]
Lemma 6.4.

Let f:[12,1]→ℝf:[\frac{1}{2},1]\rightarrow\mathbb{R} be nonnegative, monotone increasing, such that there exists M>0M>0, α>0\alpha>0, such that for any 12≤r<R≤1\frac{1}{2}\leq r<R\leq 1, it holds

f⁡(r)≤12​f​(R)+M(R−r)α.f(r)\leq\frac{1}{2}f(R)+\frac{M}{(R-r)^{\alpha}}.

Then for some Cα>0C_{\alpha}>0 depending only on α\alpha, we have

f⁡(12)≤Cα​M.f(\frac{1}{2})\leq C_{\alpha}M.

Next we show that when n=2n=2, for the solution to (6.1) and (6.2), |∇ϕ||\nabla\phi| locally bounded implies GG is locally bounded from above. More precisely,

[021V]
Proposition 6.5.

Let ϕ\phi be a smooth solution to (6.1), (6.2) in B1⊂ℂ2B_{1}\subset\mathbb{C}^{2} such that |∇ϕ||\nabla\phi| is bounded. Then for some constant C6.4C_{6.4}, we have

(6.29) eG≤C6.4​ in B12.e^{G}\leq C_{6.4}\textrm{ in $B_{\frac{1}{2}}$.}

Here C6.4C_{6.4} depends only on ‖∇ϕ‖0||\nabla\phi||_{0} and R¯\underline{R}.

[021W]
Proof.

Let 0<δ<10<\delta<1 and K>1K>1 to be determined. We will compute Δϕ​(eδ​G​(|∇ϕ|2+K))\Delta_{\phi}(e^{\delta G}(|\nabla\phi|^{2}+K)). As before, for any point p∈B1p\in B_{1} we are considering, we can always do a unitary coordinate transform which makes ϕi​j¯​(p)=ϕi​i¯​(p)​δi​j\phi_{i\bar{j}}(p)=\phi_{i\bar{i}}(p)\delta_{ij}. Under this coordinate, we can compute:

(6.30) Δϕ​(eδ​G​(|∇ϕ|2+K))=eδ​G​(δ2​|∇ϕG|2−δ​R¯)​(|∇ϕ|2+K)+eδ​G​Δϕ​(|∇ϕ|2)+eδ​G​δ​Gi​(|∇ϕ|2)i¯+Gi¯​(|∇ϕ|2)iϕi​i¯.\begin{split}&\Delta_{\phi}(e^{\delta G}(|\nabla\phi|^{2}+K))=e^{\delta G}(\delta^{2}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}-\delta\underline{R})(|\nabla\phi|^{2}+K)+e^{\delta G}\Delta_{\phi}(|\nabla\phi|^{2})\\ &+e^{\delta G}\delta\frac{G_{i}(|\nabla\phi|^{2})_{\bar{i}}+G_{\bar{i}}(|\nabla\phi|^{2})_{i}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}

Similar to the calculation in Theorem 2.1, we can find:

(6.31) Δϕ​(|∇ϕ|2)=|ϕi​j|2ϕi​i¯+Δ​ϕ+Gi​ϕi¯+Gi¯​ϕi\displaystyle\Delta_{\phi}(|\nabla\phi|^{2})=\frac{|\phi_{ij}|^{2}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}+\Delta\phi+G_{i}\phi_{\bar{i}}+G_{\bar{i}}\phi_{i}
(6.32) (|∇ϕ|2)i=∑jϕi​j​ϕj¯+ϕi​i¯​ϕi¯.\displaystyle(|\nabla\phi|^{2})_{i}=\sum_{j}\phi_{ij}\phi_{\bar{j}}+\phi_{i\bar{i}}\phi_{\bar{i}}.

Hence we obtain

(6.33) Δϕ​(eδ​G​(|∇ϕ|2+K))=eδ​Gϕi​i¯​|δ​ϕj​Gi+ϕi​j|2+K​eδ​G​(δ2​|∇ϕG|2−δ​R¯)−eδ​G​δ​R¯​|∇ϕ|2+eδ​G​Δ​ϕ+eδ​G​(1+δ)​(Gi​ϕi¯+Gi¯​ϕ)≥eδ​G​K​δ2​|∇ϕG|2+eδ​G​Δ​ϕ−δ​R¯​eδ​G​|∇ϕ|2−δ​R¯​K​eδ​G−12​K​δ2​eδ​G​|∇ϕG|2−12​(1+δ)2​eδ​G​|∇ϕ|2​Δ​ϕK​δ2.\begin{split}&\Delta_{\phi}(e^{\delta G}(|\nabla\phi|^{2}+K))=\frac{e^{\delta G}}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}|\delta\phi_{j}G_{i}+\phi_{ij}|^{2}+Ke^{\delta G}(\delta^{2}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}-\delta\underline{R})-e^{\delta G}\delta\underline{R}|\nabla\phi|^{2}\\ &+e^{\delta G}\Delta\phi+e^{\delta G}(1+\delta)(G_{i}\phi_{\bar{i}}+G_{\bar{i}}\phi)\geq e^{\delta G}K\delta^{2}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}+e^{\delta G}\Delta\phi-\delta\underline{R}e^{\delta G}|\nabla\phi|^{2}\\ &-\delta\underline{R}Ke^{\delta G}-\frac{1}{2}K\delta^{2}e^{\delta G}|\nabla_{\phi}G|^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1+\delta)^{2}e^{\delta G}|\nabla\phi|^{2}\Delta\phi}{K\delta^{2}}.\end{split}

Now we choose δ=18\delta=\frac{1}{8}, and we choose KK sufficiently large so that (1+δ)2​|∇ϕ|2K​δ2<1\frac{(1+\delta)^{2}|\nabla\phi|^{2}}{K\delta^{2}}<1. Hence we obtain from (6.33):

(6.34) Δϕ​(eδ​G​(|∇ϕ|2+K))≥12​eδ​G​Δ​ϕ−eδ​G​C6.5.\Delta_{\phi}(e^{\delta G}(|\nabla\phi|^{2}+K))\geq\frac{1}{2}e^{\delta G}\Delta\phi-e^{\delta G}C_{6.5}.

Here C9C_{9} depends only on R¯\underline{R} and ‖∇ϕ‖0||\nabla\phi||_{0}. Define η⁡(z)=(1−|z|2)−1\eta(z)=(1-|z|^{2})^{-1} for z∈B1z\in B_{1}. We show that |Δϕ​η|≤C6.6​η3​∑i1ϕi​i¯|\Delta_{\phi}\eta|\leq C_{6.6}\eta^{3}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}.Indeed,

Δϕ​η=ϕi​j¯​∂i​j¯(η)=ϕi​j¯​((1−|z|2)−2​δi​j+2​(1−|z|2)−3​z¯i​zj)=ϕi​j¯​η3​((1−|z|2)​δi​j+2​z¯i​zj).\begin{split}\Delta_{\phi}\eta&=\phi^{i\bar{j}}\partial_{i\bar{j}}(\eta)=\phi^{i\bar{j}}\bigg((1-|z|^{2})^{-2}\delta_{ij}+2(1-|z|^{2})^{-3}\bar{z}_{i}z_{j}\bigg)\\ &=\phi^{i\bar{j}}\eta^{3}\big((1-|z|^{2})\delta_{ij}+2\bar{z}_{i}z_{j}\big).\end{split}

From this the claim follows easily. Denote v=eδ​G​(|∇ϕ|2+K)v=e^{\delta G}(|\nabla\phi|^{2}+K). Suppose the function v−ηv-\eta achieves maximum at p∈B1p\in B_{1}. There are two possibilities:

Suppose v⁡(p)−η⁡(p)≤0v(p)-\eta(p)\leq 0, then we immediately conclude that

v⁡(z)≤η⁡(z)≤43, for any z∈B12.v(z)\leq\eta(z)\leq\frac{4}{3},\textrm{ for any $z\in B_{\frac{1}{2}}$.}

Then we are done.

Suppose otherwise v⁡(p)−η⁡(p)≥0v(p)-\eta(p)\geq 0, then we know at pp:

(6.35) 0≥Δϕ​(v−η)​(p)≥12​eδ​G​Δ​ϕ−eδ​G​C6.5−C6.6​η3​∑i1ϕi​i¯≥12​eδ​G​Δ​ϕ−C6.6​v3​e−G​Δ​ϕ−eδ​G​C6.5≥12​eδ​G​Δ​ϕ−C6.7​e−(1−3​δ)​G​Δ​ϕ−eδ​G​C6.5.\begin{split}0&\geq\Delta_{\phi}(v-\eta)(p)\geq\frac{1}{2}e^{\delta G}\Delta\phi-e^{\delta G}C_{6.5}-C_{6.6}\eta^{3}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &\geq\frac{1}{2}e^{\delta G}\Delta\phi-C_{6.6}v^{3}e^{-G}\Delta\phi-e^{\delta G}C_{6.5}\geq\frac{1}{2}e^{\delta G}\Delta\phi-C_{6.7}e^{-(1-3\delta)G}\Delta\phi-e^{\delta G}C_{6.5}.\end{split}

In the third inequality above, we used that ∑i1ϕi​i¯=e−G​Δ​ϕ\sum_{i}\frac{1}{\phi_{i\bar{i}}}=e^{-G}\Delta\phi, which is true only in dimension 2. Also we used that at pp, η≤v\eta\leq v.

Suppose at pp, we have 14​eδ​G≤C6.7​e−(1−3​δ)​G\frac{1}{4}e^{\delta G}\leq C_{6.7}e^{-(1-3\delta)G}, this immediately gives a bound for eGe^{G}, hence vv at pp. Then we are done.

Suppose otherwise, then we have at pp

(6.36) 0≥eδ​G​14​Δ​ϕ−eδ​G​C6.5≥eδ​G​(14​eG2−C6.5).0\geq e^{\delta G}\frac{1}{4}\Delta\phi-e^{\delta G}C_{6.5}\geq e^{\delta G}(\frac{1}{4}e^{\frac{G}{2}}-C_{6.5}).

Then we also get an estimate for eGe^{G} at pp. So we are done as well. ∎

References

  • [1] R.J. Berman, B. Berndtsson: Convexity of the K-energy on the space of Kähler metrics. Preprint, http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0401.
  • [2] Z. Blocki: On uniform estimate in Calabi-Yau theorem. Sci. China ser. A. vol 48, 244-247, 2005.
  • [3] E. Calabi. Improper affine hyperspheres of convex type and a generalization of a theorem by K. Jörgens. Michigan Math. J, vol 5, issue 2, 105-126, 1958.
  • [4] E. Calabi: Extremal Kähler metrics. In Seminar on Differential Geometry, volume 16 of 102, pages 259–290. Ann. of Math. Studies, University Press, 1982.
  • [5] E. Calabi. Extremal Kähler metrics, II. In Differential geometry and Complex analysis, pages 96–114. Springer, 1985.
  • [6] X.-X. Chen. Space of Kähler metrics. Journal of Differential Geometry, 56(2):189–234, 2000.
  • [7] X.-X. Chen. On the lower bound of the Mabuchi energy and its application. Internat. Math. Res. Notices 2000, no. 12, 607–623.
  • [8] X.-X. Chen. Space of Kähler metric (III)—Lower bound of the Calabi energy. Invent. Math. 175 (2009), no. 3, 453-503.
  • [9] X.-X. Chen. On the existence of constant scalar curvature Kähler metric: a new perspective arXiv:1506.06423.
  • [10] X.-X.Chen, L. Li and M. Paun: Approximation of weak geodesics and subharmonicity of Mabuchi energy. arXiv:1409.7896.
  • [11] X.-X. Chen, S. Donaldson and S. Sun. Kähler-Einstein metrics on Fano manifolds. I: Approximation of metrics with cone singularities.. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 28 (2015), pp. 183-197 (I).
  • [12] X.-X. Chen, S. Donaldson and S. Sun. Kähler-Einstein metrics on Fano manifolds. II: Limits with cone angle less than 2​π2\pi. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 28 (2015), pp. 199-234.
  • [13] X.-X. Chen, S. Donaldson and S. Sun. Kähler-Einstein metrics on Fano manifolds. III: Limits as cone angle approaches 2​π2\pi and completion of the main proof. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 28 (2015), pp. 235-278.
  • [14] X.X. Chen and W-Y. He. The complex Monge-Ampére equation on compact Kähler manifolds. Math. Ann. 354 (2012), no. 4, 1583–1600
  • [15] X.-X. Chen, M. Paun and Y. Zeng. On deformation of extremal metrics, http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01290.
  • [16] R. J. Conlon, F. Rochon. New examples of complete Calabi Yau metrics on OPENℂn)​n≥3.\mathbb{C}^{n})n\geq 3. Arxiv 1705.08788.
  • [17] T. Darvas. Envelopes and Geodesics in Spaces of Kähler Potentials. Preprint, http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7318.
  • [18] T. Darvas. The Mabuchi Geometry of Finite Energy Classes. Preprint, http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.2072.
  • [19] R. Dervan. Uniform Stability of twisted constant scalar curvature Kähler metrics. Preprint, http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0648.
  • [20] S. K. Donaldson. Symmetric spaces, Kähler geometry and Hamiltonian dynamics. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2, 196, pages 13–33, 1999. Northern California Symplectic Geometry Seminar.
  • [21] David Gilbarg and Neil. S. Trudinger. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Springer, Classics in Mathematics, vol 224.
  • [22] Q. Han and F.H. Lin. Elliptic partial differential equations, second edition, American Mathematical Society, 2011.
  • [23] W.Y., He. On the regularity of the complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{\text{e}}re equations. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (2012), no. 5, 1719-1727.
  • [24] W.Y. He and Y. Zeng Constant scalar curvature equation and the regularity of its weak solution. arXiv:1705.01236.
  • [25] Slawomir, Kolodziej. The complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{\text{e}}re equation. Acta Mathematica. 180(1998), no. 1, 69-117.
  • [26] C. Li, J. Li and X. Zhang. A C2,αC^{2,\alpha} estimate of the complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{e}re equation. arXiv: 1705. 08634.
  • [27] Y. Li. A new complete Calabi-Yau metric in ℂn.\mathbb{C}^{n}. arXiv:1705.07026.
  • [28] A. V. Pogorelov. The Drichelet problem for the multidimensional analogue of the Monge-Ampe`\grave{\text{e}}re equation (Russian), Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 201 (1971), 790-793.
  • [29] J. Ross, R. Thomas. An obstruction to the existence of constant scalar curvature Kähler metrics. J. Differential Geom. 72(2006) no. 3, 429–466.
  • [30] G. Székelyhidi. Fully nonliear elliptic equations on compact Hermitian manifolds. arXiv: 1501.02762.
  • [31] G. Székelyhidi. Degenerations of ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n} and Calabi-Yau metrics; arXiv:1706.00357
  • [32] G. Tian. On Kähler-Einstein metrics on certain Kähler manifolds with C1​(M)>0C_{1}(M)>0. Invent. Math. 89(1987), 225-246.
  • [33] G. Tian. Kähler-Einstein metrics with positive scalar curvature. Invent. Math. 130 (1997), no. 1, 1–37.
  • [34] Y. Wang. A remark on C2,αC^{2,\alpha} regularity of the complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{\text{e}}re Equation, Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.0902.
  • [35] S.-T. Yau. On the Ricci curvature of a compact Kähler manifold and the complex Monge-Ampe`\grave{\text{e}}re equation, I∗{I}^{*}. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 31:339–441, 1978.

Xiuxiong Chen
University of Science and Technology of China and Stony Brook University

Jingrui Cheng
University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.