ScalingStacks

Kahler geometry on toric manifolds, and some other manifolds with large symmetry

Donaldson, S. K.

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.

Kahler geometry on toric manifolds, and some other manifolds with large symmetry

S. K. Donaldson

In this article we discuss some aspects of existence problems in Kahler geometry; a field which owes so much to Yau. Kahler manifolds, in general, are rather sophisticated mathematical objects and—the author feels—it is often hard to acquire an intuition to back up the more abstract ideas. Thus the main point of this article is to discuss cases where the manifolds in question can be, to some extent, visualised and the existence problems stand out more clearly. Our central topic is the class of “toric varieties” and we will begin by reviewing the differential-geometric theory of these. Then we move on to consider two variants of the toric condition—both involving manifolds with large symmetry groups—and make a special study of a Fano 3-fold found by Mukai and Umemura. In the companion article (with R.S. Bunch), immediately following this in the volume, we take the “visualisation” theme in a different direction, with numerical results for toric surfaces.

[029P]

1 Background

We begin by reviewing some basic notions in Kahler geometry. The author’s view of this subject is coloured by an analogy with gauge theory so, while it is only indirectly relevant, we will begin with that.

[029Q]

1.1 Gauge theory and holomorphic bundles.

Here we consider a complex vector bundle EE over a complex manifold XX. We want to study the interaction between two structures

  • •

    A hermitian metric on EE;

  • •

    A holomorphic structure on EE, which can be defined by a ∂¯\overline{\partial}-operator

    ∂¯:Ω0​(E)→Ω0,1​(E).\overline{\partial}:\Omega^{0}(E)\rightarrow\Omega^{0,1}(E).

A basic fact is that given both of these structures there is a unique compatible unitary connection, in the sense that the ∂¯\overline{\partial}-operator is the (0,1)(0,1)-component of the covariant derivative. Now there are two ways of setting up the theory. In the first—the traditional point of view in complex geometry, as is [14] for example—we fix a holomorphic structure and consider the various Hermitian metrics. Then we have, for example, the formula

Fh=∂¯​(h−1​∂h)F_{h}=\overline{\partial}(h^{-1}\partial h) (1)

for the curvature tensor in a local holomorphic trivialisation, where the metric is defined by a matrix-valued function hh. In the second point of view—closer to what one does in general Yang-Mills theory—we fix the Hermitian metric and consider various ∂¯\overline{\partial}-operators. We can identify the set of these operators with the space 𝒜{\cal A} of unitary connections on EE. This point of view brings in two infinite dimensional groups. First, the group U⁡(E)U(E) of unitary automorphisms of EE and second the group G​L​(E)GL(E) of general linear automorphisms. Then G​L​(E)GL(E) acts on the space of ∂¯\overline{\partial}-operators by conjugation, and hence on the set 𝒜{\cal A} of connections. The ∂¯\overline{\partial}-operators which define equivalent holomorphic structures are exactly those which are in the same orbit of the G​L​(E)GL(E)-action.

The advantage of this second point of view comes when studying the “jumping” of holomorphic structures. This arises from the fact that the G​L​(E)GL(E) orbits are not usually closed in 𝒜{\cal A}. Fix a Kahler metric on the base space XX and use this to define the Yang-Mills functional: the L2L^{2} norm of the curvature. When one seeks Yang-Mills connections compatible with a given holomorphic structure ℰ{\cal E} one attempts to minimise this functional over a G​L​(E)GL(E) orbit in 𝒜{\cal A}. But it may happen that there is no minimum, in the simplest case because the infimum is achieved at a point in 𝒜{\cal A} in the closure but not in the orbit itself. Then one finds a Yang-Mills connection not on the original holomorphic bundle ℰ{\cal E}, but on another one ℰ′{\cal E}^{\prime}, such that there are arbitrarily small deformations of ℰ′{\cal E}^{\prime} which are isomorphic to ℰ{\cal E}. This lies at the root of the solution of the link between Yang-Mills theory and stability of holomorphic bundles expressed by the Kobayashi-Hitchin conjecture [3], [33], [7].

[029R]

1.2 Symplectic and complex structures

Now we pass on to Kahler geometry. We study the interaction between two structures on an underlying manifold MM: a complex structure and a symplectic form. We require these to be algebraically compatible in the sense that the symplectic form is the imaginary part of a hermitian metric. As before there are two points of view we can take. In the first—the conventional point of view in complex differential geometry—we fix the complex structure and vary the Kahler form. If we choose a reference form ω0\omega_{0} and vary in the fixed cohomology class then (at least when MM is compact) any other form can be represented by a Kahler potential, in the shape

ωψ=ω0+i​∂∂¯​ψ.\omega_{\psi}=\omega_{0}+i\partial\overline{\partial}\psi.

For the alternative point of view we fix a symplectic form ω\omega and consider the space 𝒥{\cal J} of algebraically-compatible almost-complex structures on MM. Then the group SDiff{\rm SDiff} of symplectomorphisms of (M,ω)(M,\omega) acts on 𝒥{\cal J}, and this is the analogue of the unitary gauge group U⁡(E)U(E) in the previous case. We consider the subset 𝒥int{\cal J}_{{\rm int}} of integrable almost complex structures, which is preserved by SDiff{\rm SDiff}. This is partitioned into equivalence classes under the relation J1∼J2J_{1}\sim J_{2} if (M,J1),(M,J2)(M,J_{1}),(M,J_{2}) are isomorphic as complex manifolds. Although the group SDiff{\rm SDiff} does not have a true complexification one can argue that the equivalence classes in 𝒥int{\cal J}_{{\rm int}} are formally the orbits of such a (mythical) complexified group, in the sense that they behave that way at the level of tangent spaces and Lie algebras [8].

[029S]

1.3 The equations

The focus of this article is on the existence question for four different kinds of special Kahler metrics, working within a fixed Kahler class on a compact manifold.

  1. 1.

    Extremal Kahler metrics The definition is due to Calabi [6]. They are critical points (and in fact local minima) of the Calabi functional

    ∫M|Riem⁡(ω)|2​d​μω,\int_{M}|{\rm Riem}(\omega)|^{2}d\mu_{\omega},

    where ω\omega varies over the Kahler metrics in a fixed Kahler class and Riem{\rm Riem} is the Riemann curvature tensor. The Euler-Lagrange equation is

    ∂¯​(grad​Sω)=0,\overline{\partial}({\rm grad}S_{\omega})=0,

    where grad{\rm grad} is the gradient operator defined by ω\omega and S⁡(ω)S(\omega) is the scalar curvature. In other words, the vector field grad​Sω{\rm grad}S_{\omega} should be a holomorphic vector field. On the face of it, this is a sixth order partial differential equation for the Kahler potential ψ\psi.

  2. 2.

    Constant scalar curvature Kahler metrics These are just those with SωS_{\omega} constant. Certainly they are extremal metrics (since the gradient vanishes), and if it happens that MM has no non-trivial holomorphic vector fields then an extremal metric must have constant scalar curvature.

  3. 3.

    Kahler-Einstein metrics By definition these are those where the Ricci tensor is a multiple λ​ω\lambda\omega. We will only consider the case when λ\lambda is positive (the zero and negative cases being completely understood through the results of Yau and Aubin). By rescaling there is no loss in supposing that λ=1\lambda=1. Solutions can only exist when MM is a “Fano” manifold and the class [ω][\omega] is −c1​(M)-c_{1}(M).

  4. 4.

    Kahler-Ricci solitons These again occur only in the Fano case. They are metrics for which

    Ric−ω=Lv​ω,{\rm Ric}-\omega=L_{v}\omega,

    where LvL_{v} is the Lie derivative along a holomorphic vector field vv.

Obviously a Kahler-Einstein metric has constant scalar curvature. There is no simple relation between the other two classes—extremal metrics and Kahler-Ricci solitons— but they can each be thought of as variants of the theory which take account of the possible holomorphic vector fields on the manifold. All this is elucidated by the theory of the Futaki invariant. We will not go in to this in detail here, since we will see later how the theory works in explicit examples. Suffice it to say that in either situation the relevant holomorphic vector field which can be determined a priori from standard topological data. More precisely, the vector field it determined once we fix a maximal compact connected subgroup of the group of holomorphic automorphisms. In either situation, an extremal metric or Kahler-Ricci soliton will necessarily be Einstein/constant scalar curvature if the Futaki invariant vanishes.

There is. of course, as yet no general existence theory for these structures but at the conjectural level one can see a detailed analogy with the Yang-Mills case. We do not want to go into this further here—partly because there is a comprehensive recent survey article [24]—but proceed with our study of special classes of manifolds.

[029T]

2 Toric manifolds

We say that a compact Kahler manifold XX of complex dimension nn is toric if the compact torus TnT^{n} acts by isometries on XX and the extension of the action to the complex torus Tcn≅(𝐂∗)nT^{n}_{c}\cong({\bf C}^{*})^{n} acts holomorphically with a free, open, dense orbit X0⊂XX_{0}\subset X.

[029U]

2.1 Local differential geometry

[029V]

2.1.1 Complex coordinates

Here we work in the neighbourhood of a point in the free orbit X0X_{0}. We can use the group action to define local co-ordinates. So we have complex co-ordinates

τa=12​(ta+i​θa)\tau_{a}=\frac{1}{2}(t_{a}+i\theta_{a})

say. The factor 22 here will simplify the formulae later. Locally the isometry group acts by translations in the θa\theta_{a} directions. (Later, when we work globally, the θa\theta_{a} will become “angular” co-ordinates, with period 4​π4\pi.) Locally, a Kahler metric is given by i​∂∂¯​ϕi\partial\overline{\partial}\phi for a function ϕ\phi of the complex variables τa\tau_{a}. If this function only depends on the real parts tat_{a} then the metric will obviously be invariant under translations in the θa\theta_{a} directions and it is not hard to see that any metric of the kind we are considering arises in this way. Now if we write ϕ=ϕ⁡(ta)\phi=\phi(t_{a}) then the tensor i​∂∂¯​ϕi\partial\overline{\partial}\phi is just

∑a​b∂ϕ∂ta​∂tb​d​τa​d​τ¯b,\sum_{ab}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t_{a}\partial t_{b}}d\tau_{a}d\overline{\tau}_{b},

and this defines a positive Hermitian form if and only if the Hessian matrix of ϕ\phi is positive definite; or in other words ϕ\phi is a convex function of the real variables τa\tau_{a}. Thus the theory of convex functions on Euclidean spaces is embedded, as this translationally invariant case, in the theory of Kahler geometry. We write ∇2ϕ\nabla^{2}\phi for the Hessian of ϕ\phi and also use index notation ∇2ϕ=(ϕa​b)\nabla^{2}\phi=(\phi^{ab}). The placing of the indices is unconventional but will be convenient later. We write (ϕa​b)(\phi_{ab}) for the inverse matrix. Explicitly the symplectic form ω\omega is

12​∑ϕa​b​d​ta∧d​θb,\frac{1}{2}\sum\phi^{ab}dt_{a}\wedge d\theta_{b},

and the Riemannian metric is

12​(∑ϕa​b​d​ta​d​tb+∑ϕa​b​d​θa​d​θb).\frac{1}{2}\left(\sum\phi^{ab}dt^{a}dt^{b}+\sum\phi^{ab}d\theta^{a}d\theta^{b}\right).

We regard the curvature tensor of this metric as an element of Λ2⊗Λ2\Lambda^{2}\otimes\Lambda^{2}. Then the curvature tensor is

∑Ra​b​c​d​d​τa​d​τ¯b⊗d​τc​d​τ¯d,\sum R^{abcd}d\tau_{a}d\overline{\tau}_{b}\otimes d\tau_{c}d\overline{\tau}_{d},

where

Ra​b​c​d=ϕa​b​c​d−ϕa​c​λ​ϕb​d​μ​ϕλ​μ.R^{abcd}=\phi^{abcd}-\phi^{ac\lambda}\phi^{bd\mu}\phi_{\lambda\mu}. (2)

(Here we use the summation convention over the repeated indices. The third and fourth order derivatives of ϕ\phi are written as ϕa​b​c,ϕa​b​c​d\phi^{abc},\phi^{abcd} in the obvious way.) This formula for the curvature tensor is just the formula (1), expressed in our current notation.)

[029W]

2.1.2 Symplectic coordinates

We now take a different point of view, following Guillemin [15] and Abreu [1], and also the general scheme outlined in the previous section. Thus we consider an open set in 𝐑n×𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}\times{\bf R}^{n} with linear coordinates xa,θax^{a},\theta_{a}. More invariantly, we should write the ambient space as V×V∗V\times V^{*} where V=𝐑nV={\bf R}^{n}, with coordinates xax^{a}. We assume the open set has the form Q×V∗Q\times V^{*} where Q⊂VQ\subset V is convex. On this open set we consider the standard symplectic form

Ω=12​∑d​xa​d​θa.\Omega=\frac{1}{2}\sum dx^{a}d\theta_{a}.

This is preserved by the translations in the θ\theta variables. More precisely we have a Hamiltonian action of the group G=V∗G=V^{*} on the symplectic manifold Q×V∗Q\times V^{*} and the moment map is just the projection to QQ, with components the coordinates xax^{a}. We consider GG-invariant almost-complex structures on Q×V∗Q\times V^{*}, algebraically compatible with Ω\Omega. Now at each point such a structure is specified by a subspace of the complexified cotangent bundle which has a unique basis of the form

ϵa=d​θa+Za​b​d​xb,\epsilon_{a}=d\theta_{a}+Z_{ab}dx^{b},

where (Za​b)(Z_{ab}) is a symmetric complex matrix with positive definite imaginary part. (This is just the standard description of the Siegel upper half-space S​p​(n,𝐑)/U⁡(n)Sp(n,{\bf R})/U(n).) So our almost-complex structure is represented by a matrix-valued function (Za​b)(Z_{ab}) and GG-invariance specifies that ZZ is a function of the variables xax^{a}. Following our general scheme we should now determine when such an almost-complex structure is integrable. By definition this means that the 22-forms

d​ϵa=∂Za​b∂xc​d​xc​d​xbd\epsilon_{a}=\frac{\partial Z_{ab}}{\partial x^{c}}dx^{c}dx^{b}

can be expressed as ∑αa​b∧ϵb\sum\alpha_{ab}\wedge\epsilon_{b} and this only happens when all the d​ϵad\epsilon_{a} are zero (since d​ϵad\epsilon_{a} does not contain any terms involving d​θid\theta_{i}). So the integrability condition is

∂Za​b∂xc=∂Za​c∂xb.\frac{\partial Z_{ab}}{\partial x^{c}}=\frac{\partial Z_{ac}}{\partial x^{b}}. (3)

Now consider the action of the infinite-dimensional symplectomorphism group. In this situation we need to consider the symplectic diffeomorphisms that commute with the GG-action. More precisely we want to take the Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms generated by functions that Poisson-commute with the generators of the GG-action; but these are just the functions of the xix^{i} variables. The corresponding group 𝒢{\cal G} of diffeomorphisms can be identified with smooth functions on QQ, where a function ff acts by taking a point (x¯,θ¯)(\underline{x},\underline{\theta}) to (x¯,θ¯+D​f)(\underline{x},\underline{\theta}+Df). This gives an action on the space of almost-complex structures which simply takes Za​bZ_{ab} to Za​b+fa​bZ_{ab}+f_{ab}, where fa​bf_{ab} is the Hessian of ff.

Now consider the action of 𝒢{\cal G} on the integrable structures. The condition (3) implies, by the elementary “criterion for an exact differential”, that there are complex-valued functions i​tait_{a} such that

Za​b=i​∂ta∂xb.Z_{ab}=i\frac{\partial t_{a}}{\partial x^{b}}.

The fact that Za​bZ_{ab} is symmetric implies, by the same criterion, that there is a single complex valued function FF such that ta=∂F∂xat_{a}=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x^{a}}, in other words

Za​b=∂2F∂xa​∂xb.Z_{ab}=\frac{\partial^{2}F}{\partial x^{a}\partial x^{b}}.

If we let ff be minus the real part of FF then the action of f∈𝒢f\in{\cal G} takes the structure (Za​b)(Z_{ab}) to a new structure with zero real part. So ,taking account of this diffeomorphism group, we can reduce to considering Z=i​YZ=iY, with YY real and positive definite. Now the functions tat_{a} are real and ϵa=d⁡(ta+i​θa)\epsilon_{a}=d(t_{a}+i\theta_{a}) so ta+i​θat_{a}+i\theta_{a} are local complex co-ordinates. (Thus we confirm the Newlander-Nirenberg integrability theorem in this special case.). Write uu for the imaginary part of the function FF above, so

Ya​b=∂2u∂xa​∂xb=ua​b.Y_{ab}=\frac{\partial^{2}u}{\partial x^{a}\partial x^{b}}=u_{ab}.

Some linear algebra shows that the metric defined by the almost complex structure and the fixed form Ω\Omega is

12​∑ui​j​d​xi​d​xj+ui​j​d​θi​d​θj,\frac{1}{2}\sum u_{ij}dx^{i}dx^{j}+u^{ij}d\theta_{i}d\theta_{j}, (4)

where (ui​j)(u^{ij}) is the matrix inverse of the Hessian (ui​j)(u_{ij}).

The conclusion of this is that we have another description of the local differential geometry, defined by a convex function uu of the variables xax^{a}. The relation between this picture and that in complex co-ordinates discussed above is just the Legendre transform for convex functions. That is, given a convex function uu on Q⊂VQ\subset V we define a function ϕ\phi on an open set Q∗⊂V∗Q^{*}\subset V^{*} by decreeing that

ϕ⁡(t¯)=∑xa​ta−u⁡(x¯),\phi(\underline{t})=\sum x^{a}t_{a}-u(\underline{x}),

where the point x¯∈V\underline{x}\in V is the unique point where D​u=t¯Du=\underline{t}. As is well-known, this transform expresses a symmetric relation between uu and ϕ\phi, so uu is the Legendre transform of ϕ\phi. Further, the Hessian ϕa​b=∂2ϕ∂ta​tb\phi^{ab}=\frac{\partial^{2}\phi}{\partial t_{a}t_{b}} is the inverse of the Hessian ua​bu_{ab} of uu at the corresponding point. It is easy to see using this that the Legendre transform does give a Kahler potential for the same metric expressed in the complex co-ordinates. Conversely if we start with the complex description and a convex function ϕ\phi then the Legendre transform gives the symplectic picture. More invariantly, the map x¯\underline{x} is characterised as the moment map for the action of the group of translations.

Thus we have two natural coordinate systems to use when discussing this local differential geometry, and of course we can transform any formulae from one set-up to the other. Working in the symplectic picture we set

Fi​j​k​l=ui​a​uj​b​∂2ua​b∂xk​∂xl.F_{ijkl}=u_{ia}u_{jb}\frac{\partial^{2}u^{ab}}{\partial x^{k}\partial x^{l}}.

Then one finds that the Riemann curvature tensor is

Fi​j​k​l​ηi∧ηk⊗η​j∧ηl,F_{ijkl}\eta^{i}\wedge\eta^{k}\otimes\eta{j}\wedge\eta^{l}, (5)

where ηa=d​xa+i​ua​b​d​θb\eta^{a}=dx^{a}+iu^{ab}d\theta_{b}. So the four-index tensor FF is essentially the same as the curvature tensor. For example the norm if the Riemann curvature tensor is the same as the natural norm of FF i.e.

|F|2=∑Fi​j​k​l​Fa​b​c​d​ui​a​uj​b​uk​c​ul​d.|F|^{2}=\sum F_{ijkl}F_{abcd}u^{ia}u^{jb}u^{kc}u^{ld}.

The Ricci tensor is in the same fashion, equivalent to the tensor

Gi​j=Fi​j​k​l​uk​l,G_{ij}=F_{ijkl}u^{kl},

which can also be expressed as

Gi​j=∂2L∂xi​∂xjG_{ij}=\frac{\partial^{2}L}{\partial x^{i}\partial x^{j}}

where L=logdet(ui​j)L=\log\det(u_{ij}). The scalar curvature is given by another contraction yielding Abreu’s formula

S=Gi​j​ui​j=∑i​j∂2ui​j∂xi​∂xj.S=G_{ij}u^{ij}=\sum_{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}u^{ij}}{\partial x^{i}\partial x^{j}}. (6)

We mentioned in the previous section that in the general case the group of symplectomorphisms does not have a complexification, and this limits the practicality of the symplectic approach to Kahler geometry. But in this special situation there is a complexification of 𝒢{\cal G}: simply the complex valued functions on QQ under addition. Further, in it is nearly true that this complexified group 𝒢c{\cal G}^{c} acts on the set of almost complex structures, represented as matrix-valued functions Za​bZ_{ab}. The “action” is simply to map ZZ to Z+∂2F∂xa​∂xbZ+\frac{\partial^{2}F}{\partial x^{a}\partial x^{b}}. It is only a local action because the condition that the imaginary part of XX is positive definite could be violated. Our discussion above asserts that all the integrable structures are in a single orbit of this complexified action and the parametrisation by the function uu is the parametrisation by an open set in the quotient 𝒢c/𝒢{\cal G}^{c}/{\cal G}. Further, it is easy to verify in this framework that the scalar curvature given by the formula (6) is a moment map for the action of 𝒢{\cal G} with respect to the natural symplectic structure on the space of almost-complex structures (which is derived from the invariant symplectic form on the Siegel upper half space), see [9].

[029X]

2.2 The global structure

In the previous section we discussed the local differential geometry of a toric manifold in the dense open set where the torus action is free. We now go on to the global picture. There are at least three different points of view we can take but the essential thing is that this structure is encoded by a bounded polytope P⊂𝐑nP\subset{\bf R}^{n}, or more invariantly P⊂VP\subset V in the notation of the previous section. This polytope is defined by a finite collection of linear inequalities λr​(x¯)>cr\lambda_{r}(\underline{x})>c_{r} corresponding to the codimension-11 faces. So λr\lambda_{r} are vectors in the dual space V∗V^{*}. We suppose that there is an integer lattice in VV, which we can take to be the standard 𝐙n{\bf Z}^{n} in 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}. Then there is a dual lattice in V∗V^{*} and we suppose that the λr\lambda_{r} lie in this dual lattice. We can rescale so that the λr\lambda_{r} are primitive vectors with respect to this lattice. Further, we suppose that each vertex of PP is contained in exactly nn codimension faces and that the corresponding λr\lambda_{r} form an integer basis for the dual lattice. Such a polytope is called a Delzant polytope. Another way of expressing the condition is via the group Γ\Gamma of maps

x¯↦A​x¯+b¯\underline{x}\mapsto A\underline{x}+\underline{b}

from 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} to itself, where AA is restricted to lie in G​L​(n,𝐙)GL(n,{\bf Z}). Up to the action of Γ\Gamma, a neighbourhood of any vertex of PP is equivalent to a neighbourhood of 00 in the infinite polytope {xi>0}⊂𝐑n\{x_{i}>0\}\subset{\bf R}^{n}. If the vertices of the polytope are integral we call it an integral Delzant polytope.

Example The standard simplex in 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}, given by the inequalities

x1>0,x2>0,…,xn>0,x1+x2+…xn≤1x^{1}>0,x^{2}>0,\dots,x^{n}>0,x^{1}+x^{2}+\dots x^{n}\leq 1

is a Delzant polytope.

[029Y]

2.2.1 Complex charts

Start with a Delzant polytope PP. Let 𝒮{\cal S} be the finite set of pairs of

  • •

    a vertex pp of PP;

  • •

    an ordering λr⁡(i)\lambda_{r(i)} of the faces containing pp.

For any two σ=(p,r⁡())\sigma=(p,r(\ )) and σ′=(p′,r′​())\sigma^{\prime}=(p^{\prime},r^{\prime}(\ )) in 𝒮{\cal S} there is a unique element γσ,σ′\gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}} of Γ\Gamma which maps pp to p′p^{\prime} and matches up the corresponding faces. Obviously we have

γσ,σ=1;γσ,σ′=γσ′,σ−1;γσ,σ′′=γσ,σ′∘γσ′​σ′′.\gamma_{\sigma,\sigma}=1\ ;\ \gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}=\gamma_{\sigma^{\prime},\sigma}^{-1}\ ;\ \gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime\prime}}=\gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}\circ\gamma_{\sigma^{\prime}\sigma^{\prime\prime}}.

Now suppose we have any space M∗M^{*} on which Γ\Gamma acts and M∗M^{*} is a subset of a larger space MM.We take the product 𝒮×M{\cal S}\times M and define a relation

(σ,m)∼(σ′,γσ,σ′​(m)),(\sigma,m)\sim(\sigma^{\prime},\gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}(m)),

for m∈M∗m\in M^{*}. The properties above tell us that this is an equivalence relation, so we can take the quotient 𝒮×M/∼{\cal S}\times M/\sim. In our case we take MM to be 𝐂n{\bf C}^{n} and M∗=(𝐂∗)n⊂𝐂nM^{*}=({\bf C}^{*})^{n}\subset{\bf C}^{n}. Then G​L​(n,𝐙)GL(n,{\bf Z}) acts on M∗M^{*}. This is clear if we identify 𝐂∗{\bf C}^{*} with 𝐂/𝐙{\bf C}/{\bf Z} and hence M∗M^{*} with 𝐂n/𝐙n{\bf C}^{n}/{\bf Z}^{n}. In terms of the original description, with co-ordinates ziz_{i} on 𝐂n{\bf C}^{n}, we make a matrix (ai​j)(a_{ij}) act on (𝐂∗)n({\bf C}^{*})^{n}by

zi′=∏zjai​j,z^{\prime}_{i}=\prod z_{j}^{a_{ij}},

which is well-defined since the ai​ja_{ij} are integers. There is a natural homomorphism from Γ\Gamma to G​L​(n,𝐙)GL(n,{\bf Z}) so Γ\Gamma acts on M∗M^{*} via this. Then it is clear from the construction that the quotient Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}} is a complex manifold covered by charts MσM_{\sigma} labelled by elements of Σ\Sigma, each chart being a copy of M=𝐂nM={\bf C}^{n}. The charts for the n!n! different elements of Σ\Sigma belonging to the same vertex of PP have the same image so it suffices just to take one of them. There is an action of the complex torus TcnT^{n}_{c} with a dense orbit, which is the image of any {σ}×M∗\{\sigma\}\times M^{*}. The construction behaves well with respect to restriction to faces, so for each mm-dimensional face Π\Pi of PP there is a submanifold XΠ⊂Xcx.X^{\Pi}\subset X_{{\rm cx.}} which is an mm-dimensional complex submanifold with an action of TcmT^{m}_{c} induced from the action on Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}}. Indeed the orbits of the TcnT^{n}_{c} action on Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}} correspond to these faces. In particular the vertices of PP correspond to points of Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}}; the fixed points under the TcnT^{n}_{c} action.

Example When PP is the nn-simplex, as above, the manifold Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}} we construct is 𝐂𝐏n{\bf C}{\bf P}^{n}.

So far we have not used the full strength of the data we began with. For example, we could simply have omitted some vertices of PP and run the same construction. We have also thrown away some of the data, through the homomomorphism from Γ\Gamma to G​L​(n,𝐙)GL(n,{\bf Z}). First, the fact that the vertices come from a bounded polytope yields the compactness of the space Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}} we have defined. We leave this as an exercise for the reader. For the second point, it is indeed the case that if we vary the constants crc_{r} slightly (so that we do not introduce or remove any vertices) we get the same complex manifold Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}}. The extra structure of the specific polytope corresponds to fixing a distinguished cohomology class in H2​(Xcx.,𝐑)H^{2}(X_{{\rm cx.}};{\bf R}). This is easiest to see in the case when the polytope is integral. Then the γσ​σ′\gamma_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}} lie in a smaller group Γ𝐙⊂Γ\Gamma_{{\bf Z}}\subset\Gamma which is an extension

𝐙n→Γ𝐙→G​L​(n,𝐙).{\bf Z}^{n}\rightarrow\Gamma_{{\bf Z}}\rightarrow GL(n,{\bf Z}).

We take the trivial complex line bundle 𝐂¯\underline{{\bf C}} over M=𝐂nM={\bf C}^{n}. Then Γ𝐙\Gamma_{{\bf Z}} acts on the restriction of 𝐂¯\underline{{\bf C}} to M∗M^{*} and the same construction gives a complex line bundle L→Xcx.L\rightarrow X_{{\rm cx.}}. Furthermore this is an equivariant line bundle for the TcnT^{n}_{c} action. The distinguished cohomology class is just the first Chern class of LL. In general, when the vertices are not integral we consider the sheaf Z1Z^{1} of closed 11-forms over Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}}. We can use the γσ​σ′\gamma_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}} to define a closed 11-form on Mσ∩Mσ′M_{\sigma}\cap M_{\sigma^{\prime}} and this yields a Cech cocycle with values in this sheaf. Then the short exact sequence of sheaves

0→𝐑→C∞​(Xcx.)→Z1→00\rightarrow{\bf R}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(X_{{\rm cx.}})\rightarrow Z^{1}\rightarrow 0

gives a boundary map from H1​(Xcx.,Z1)H^{1}(X_{{\rm cx.}};Z^{1}) to H2​(Xcx.,𝐑)H^{2}(X_{{\rm cx.}},{\bf R}) which defines the distinguished cohomology class. (In fact this cohomology class is not changed if we translate PP. A more precise statement is that the Delzant polytope PP can be recovered from the complex manifold XX with a suitable distinguished TcnT^{n}_{c}-equivariant cohomology class.)

Example. Consider a vertex pp of a Delzant polytope PP. There is no loss of generality in supposing that pp is the origin and that near the origin PP agrees with the standard model {xi>0}\{x^{i}>0\}. Then, for δ>0\delta>0, we define PδP_{\delta} to be the subset of PP defined by the additional inequality ∑xi>δ\sum x_{i}>\delta. For small enough δ\delta this is again a Delzant polytope and the complex manifold XδX_{\delta} is the blow-up of XX at the fixed point corresponding to PP. The exceptional divisor EE is a copy of projective space, associated to the “new” n−1n-1-simplex in the boundary of PδP_{\delta}. The manifold does not vary with δ\delta but the evaluation of the distinguished cohomology class on the standard generator of H2​(E)⊂H2​(Xδ)H_{2}(E)\subset H_{2}(X_{\delta}) is δ\delta.

Now we go back to differential geometry. If we have a Kahler metric on Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}}, its restriction to the open orbit is described by a Kahler potential; a convex function ϕ\phi on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}, as above. Conversely we can define am “admissible” convex function ϕ\phi to be one which defines a Kahler metric over the orbit which extends smoothly to the compact manifold. This is a condition on the asymptotic behaviour of ϕ\phi at infinity in 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}. The essence of the condition is that ϕ\phi is asymptotic to the piecewise linear function

Φ⁡(t¯)=maxp⁡p.t¯,\Phi(\underline{t})=\max_{p}p.\underline{t},

where pp runs over the vertices of the polytope. Thus if we let ϕλ\phi_{\lambda} be the rescaling ϕλ​(t¯)=λ−1​ϕ​(λ​t¯)\phi_{\lambda}(\underline{t})=\lambda^{-1}\phi(\lambda\underline{t}) for λ∈𝐑\lambda\in{\bf R} then ϕλ→Φ\phi_{\lambda}\rightarrow\Phi (in C0C^{0})as λ\lambda tends to infinity. In the model case when 00 is a vertex and PP agrees locally with {xi>0}\{x^{i}>0\} the local complex co-ordinates are za=log⁡τaz_{a}=\log\tau_{a} and so |za|2=eta|z_{a}|^{2}=e^{t_{a}}. The admissible condition is that ϕ\phi extends to a smooth function of the complex co-ordinates zaz_{a}.

Example The round metric on the 22-sphere with area 2​π2\pi is given by the Kahler potential

ϕ⁡(t)=log⁡(1+et).\phi(t)=\log(1+e^{t}).

In terms of a local complex co-ordinate zz this is log⁡(1+|z|2)\log(1+|z|^{2}).

[029Z]

2.2.2 Symplectic construction

Here we start with the product P×TnP\times T^{n} with standard co-ordinates xa,θax^{a},\theta_{a} as before, except of course that now the θa\theta_{a} are taken to be “angular” co-ordinates with period 4​π4\pi. This is a noncompact symplectic manifold with the standard symplectic form Ω=∑d​xa​d​θa\Omega=\sum dx^{a}d\theta_{a} and with Hamiltionian TnT^{n} action whose moment map is the projection to PP. The essential point is that this can be compactified to a compact symplectic manifold XsympX_{{\rm symp}} and the moment map extends to a map with image the closure P¯\overline{P}. This works in a similar fashion to the complex picture. For example, consider the neighbourhood of a vertex of PP which as usual we can take to be the origin, with PP locally modelled on {xi>0}\{x^{i}>0\}. Then Ω\Omega is the pull-back of the standard form on 𝐂n{\bf C}^{n} under the map

(xa,θa)↦(|xa|1/2​ei​θa),(x^{a},\theta_{a})\mapsto(|x_{a}|^{1/2}e^{i\theta_{a}}),

We adjoin a neighbourhood of 00 in 𝐂n{\bf C}^{n} to P×TnP\times T^{n} using this map and repeat the construction, modified in the obvious way, for all other boundary points of PP.

Now of course this symplectic construction describes the same object as the complex construction in the previous section. We return to the discussion of the local differential geometry taking now Q=PQ=P. We can start with an admissible Kahler potential ϕ\phi on 𝐑n=V∗{\bf R}^{n}=V^{*}. Then its Legendre transform is a function on PP. Around a vertex, as above, this has the form

u=∑xi​log⁡xi+v,u=\sum x^{i}\log x^{i}+v,

where vv is a smooth function (on the manifold with corners). We say that a symplectic potential uu is admissible if it is the Legendre transform of an admissible Kahler potential ϕ\phi. Stated explicitly in terms of uu this the requirement of “Guillemin boundary conditions”, which are

  1. 1.

    uu is a continuous function on P¯\overline{P}, smooth in the interior.

  2. 2.

    The restriction of uu to each face is smooth and strictly convex.

  3. 3.

    Let qq a boundary point which lies on a codimension rr face of PP, so without loss of generality q=0q=0 and PP is locally defined by equations x1>0,…​xr>0x^{1}>0,\dots x^{r}>0. Then near qq

    u=∑i=1rxi​log⁡xi+vu=\sum_{i=1}^{r}x_{i}\log x_{i}+v

    where vv is smooth.

It is easy to see that such functions exist. For example we can take the Guillemin function

u=∑r(λr−cr)​log⁡(λr−cr).u=\sum_{r}(\lambda_{r}-c_{r})\log(\lambda_{r}-c_{r}).

Either way, we get a map from the complex manifold Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}} to the symplectic manifold XsympX_{{\rm symp}} which matches up the structures involved.

Example The round metric on S2S^{2}, of area 2​π2\pi, is defined by the symplectic potential, on the interval [0,1][0,1],

u⁡(x)=(x​log⁡x+(1−x)​log⁡(1−x)).u(x)=\left(x\log x+(1-x)\log(1-x)\right).
[02A0]

2.2.3 Algebraic construction

Here we suppose that the Delzant polytope PP is integral. We consider all the multiples k​P¯k\overline{P} for integers k≥0k\geq 0 and let BkB_{k} be the set of lattice points

Bk=k​P¯∩𝐙n.B_{k}=k\overline{P}\cap{\bf Z}^{n}.

Let the number of points in BkB_{k} be Nk+1N_{k}+1. We can put all these sets together by considering the cone over PP

cone(P)={(x¯,y)∈𝐑n+1:y≥0,x¯∈yP¯}.cone(P)=\{(\underline{x},y)\in{\bf R}^{n+1}:y\geq 0,\underline{x}\in y\overline{P}\}.

The disjoint union of the sets BkB_{k} can be identified with the set B=c​o​n​e​(P)∩𝐙n+1B=cone(P)\cap{\bf Z}^{n+1}. Now BB is an abelian semi-group under addition and we have a corresponding ring RR over 𝐂{\bf C} with one generator sbs_{b} for each point of b∈Bb\in B and relations sb​sb′=sb+b′s_{b}s_{b^{\prime}}=s_{b+b^{\prime}}. This is a graded ring, R=⨁RkR=\bigoplus R_{k}, where RkR_{k} has a basis sνs_{\nu} corresponding to the points ν\nu of BkB_{k}. Further, there is an obvious action of the torus TcnT_{c}^{n} on RR.

All of these definitions make sense for any convex set PP. The crucial fact is that when the PP is an integral polytope the ring is finitely generated. Thus there is a corresponding projective variety Xalg=Proj⁡(R)X_{{\rm alg}}={\rm Proj}(R), and the group action on RR defines an action on XalgX_{{\rm alg}}. Second, if PP is Delzant, then XalgX_{{\rm alg}} is smooth and of course this recovers the same complex manifold Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}}. The vector spaces RkR_{k} are the sections

Rk=H0​(Xcx.,Lk)R_{k}=H^{0}(X_{{\rm cx.}},L^{k})

and it is not hard to see that for any k≥1k\geq 1 the sections give an embedding Xcx.→𝐏⁡(Rk∗)X_{{\rm cx.}}\rightarrow{\bf P}(R_{k}^{*}). From this algebro-geometric point of view the integer λr​(ν)−cr\lambda_{r}(\nu)-c_{r}, for lattice points ν∈P¯\nu\in\overline{P}, is the order of vanishing of the section sνs_{\nu} along the corresponding divisor in Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}}.

Example Let PP be the square (0,1)2⊂𝐑2(0,1)^{2}\subset{\bf R}^{2}. The corresponding manifold is the product S2×S2S^{2}\times S^{2}. The points in B1B_{1} are the four vertices p0=(0,0),p1=(0,1),p2=(1,0),p3=(1,1)p_{0}=(0,0),p_{1}=(0,1),p_{2}=(1,0),p_{3}=(1,1) so R1R_{1} has a corresponding basis s0​s1,s2,s3s_{0}s_{1},s_{2},s_{3} say. The equation p0+p3=p1+p2p_{0}+p_{3}=p_{1}+p_{2} goes over to the relation s0​s3=s1​s2s_{0}s_{3}=s_{1}s_{2}. The embedding of Xcx.X_{{\rm cx.}} in 𝐏3{\bf P}^{3} has image the quadric hypersurface cut out by the equation Z0​Z1−Z2​Z3=0Z_{0}Z_{1}-Z_{2}Z_{3}=0.

When the polytope PP is integral but not Delzant the variety XalgX_{{\rm alg}} we construct is singular. If each vertex lies on exactly nn codimension-1 faces then XalgX_{{\rm alg}} is an orbifold. Much of the theory, including the differential-geometric constructions, extends easily to this case.

To sum up we have three ways—complex, symplectic and algebraic— of constructing a compact manifold associated to an integral Delzant polytope. From now on we will just denote this by XX.

[02A1]

2.2.4 Real forms

A toric manifold XX contains a submanifold X𝐑X_{{\bf R}} of one half the dimension which is a “real form” in the complex picture and Lagrangian in the symplectic picture. To define this from the first point of view we just observe that the action of Γ\Gamma on M∗=(𝐂∗)nM^{*}=({\bf C}^{*})^{n} preserves the subset M𝐑∗M_{{\bf R}}^{*} of real points. Then we run the same construction. From the symplectic point of view we let AA be the subgroup of the real torus TnT^{n} given by the elements of order 22, so AA is isomorphic to (𝐙/2)n({\bf Z}/2)^{n}. Then we consider the subset A×P⊂Tn×PA\times P\subset T^{n}\times P and check that the closure of this in XX is a smooth nn-dimensional manifold. From the algebro-geometric point of view we simply observe that all our relations are real, so complex conjugation acts on everything and we get a real form of our complex algebraic variety.

This construction is particularly vivid in the symplectic picture [kn:Guil2]. The composite

X𝐑→X→P¯,X_{{\bf R}}\rightarrow X\rightarrow\overline{P},

is a 2n2^{n}-fold covering map over the interior P⊂P¯P\subset\overline{P} so we can construct X𝐑X_{{\bf R}} by taking 2n2^{n} copies of P¯\overline{P} and gluing the boundary components appropriately. The Riemannian metric on PP given by the Hessian ui​ju_{ij} of an admissible symplectic potential extends to a smooth Riemannian metric on X𝐑X_{{\bf R}}. In particular we get a conformal structure on X𝐑X_{{\bf R}} and when n=2n=2 a Riemann surface structure on the oriented cover of X𝐑X_{{\bf R}}. (The surface X𝐑X_{{\bf R}} is only itself orientable in the case when PP is a rectangle.) For example, if PP is the standard triangle in 𝐑2{\bf R}^{2} then X𝐑X_{{\bf R}} is a real projective plane in X=𝐂𝐏2X={\bf C}{\bf P}^{2} and can be constructed by gluing four triangles. The oriented cover is S2S^{2}, constructed by gluing eight triangles. In general we get a class of Riemann surfaces obtained by gluing eight polygons. Given a symplectic potential uu, the induced conformal structure on P¯\overline{P} is equivalent to the standard disc. So if PP has ss vertices we get an invariant of uu in the moduli space ℳs{\cal M}_{s} of configurations of ss distinct points on S1=𝐑𝐏1S^{1}={\bf R}{\bf P}^{1} modulo the action of P​S​L​(2,𝐑)PSL(2,{\bf R}). This determines the conformal structure of X𝐑X_{{\bf R}}, and is an interesting global invariant of a toric Kahler surface.

[02A2]

2.3 Algebraic metrics and asymptotics

If XX is any compact complex manifold and L→XL\rightarrow X a very ample line bundle we can generate Kahler metrics on XX by the following procedure. Choose a Hermitian metric on the complex vector space H0​(X,L)H^{0}(X;L). This induces a metric on the dual space and hence a standard Fubini-Study metric on the complex projective space 𝐏⁡(H∗​(X,L)∗){\bf P}(H^{*}(X;L)^{*}). Now we use the embedding ι:X→𝐏⁡(H0​(X,L)∗)\iota:X\rightarrow{\bf P}(H^{0}(X;L)^{*}) to induce a Kahler metric on XX. We call metrics of this kind “algebraic Kahler metrics”.

This construction becomes very simple and explicit in the toric case. We consider metrics on H0​(L)H^{0}(L) which are invariant under the torus action, hence are diagonal in the standard basis sνs_{\nu}. A collection of positive numbers aνa_{\nu}, for each lattice point ν\nu in P¯\overline{P}, defines an invariant metric with ‖sν‖2=aν−1\|s_{\nu}\|^{2}=a_{\nu}^{-1}. Given this data {aν}\{a_{\nu}\} we have a Kahler potential on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}:

ϕ⁡(t¯)=log⁡(∑νaν​eν.t¯),\phi(\underline{t})=\log\left(\sum_{\nu}a_{\nu}e^{\nu.\underline{t}}\right), (7)

where ν.t\nu.t denotes the dual pairing between the copy of 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} on which ϕ\phi defined and the copy of 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} containing PP. This is the potential which defines the algebraic metric via the projective embedding.

We will not discuss this topic at length here, but we want to make the point that the data −log⁡aν-\log a_{\nu}—a real-valued function on the lattice points in P¯\overline{P}—can be thought of as a “discrete approximation” to the symplectic potential uu—a real-valued function on P¯\overline{P}. This only makes sense as an asymptotic statement, when we replace the bundle LL by LkL^{k} and PP by k​PkP for large kk. Rescaling, we can equivalently fix PP and replace the integer lattice by k−1​𝐙nk^{-1}{\bf Z}^{n}. We discuss two simple precise statements which illustrate this general idea but for many further developments in a similar vein we refer to the recent works of Zelditch [36].

[02A3]

2.3.1 Asymptotics of L2L^{2}-metrics

Suppose we start with some symplectic potential uu and corresponding Kahler potential ϕ\phi. Then ϕ\phi can be regarded as a Hermitian metric on the line bundle LL over the toric variety. Thus we have a natural L2L^{2}-metric on H0​(X,L)H^{0}(X;L)

‖s‖2=∫X|s|2​d​μϕ,\|s\|^{2}=\int_{X}|s|^{2}d\mu_{\phi},

where the pointwise norm |s||s| is defined by ϕ\phi and d​μϕd\mu_{\phi} is the volume form of the Kahler metric. Thus, starting with uu we get a collection of numbers aν=‖sν‖−1a_{\nu}=\|s_{\nu}\|^{-1}. Now replace LL by LkL^{k}, as above. The same symplectic potential uu defines a metric on LkL^{k} and we get a collection of numbers aν(k)a_{\nu}^{(k)} say, for ν∈P¯∩k−1​𝐙n\nu\in\overline{P}\cap k^{-1}{\bf Z}^{n}. One precise statement expressing the general idea above is that for each ϵ>0\epsilon>0 and compact subset K⊂PK\subset P there is a k0k_{0} such that

|u⁡(ν)−k−1​log⁡aν(k)|<ϵ,|u(\nu)-k^{-1}\log a_{\nu}^{(k)}|<\epsilon,

once k≥k0k\geq k_{0}, for all ν∈K∩k−1​𝐙n\nu\in K\cap k^{-1}{\bf Z}^{n}.

The proof of this is very simple. Go back to the case k=1k=1 for the moment. Unravelling the definitions, the coefficients aνa_{\nu} are given by

aν−1=∫𝐑ne−ϕ​et¯.ν​det(∇2ϕ)​𝑑t¯,a_{\nu}^{-1}=\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}e^{-\phi}e^{\underline{t}.\nu}\det(\nabla^{2}\phi)\ d\underline{t},

where ϕ\phi is the given Kahler potential. (Notice, by the way, that Holder’s inequality shows that ν↦−log⁡aν\nu\mapsto-\log a_{\nu} is a convex function, in the obvious sense.) Rescaling, we get aν,k−1=Iν​(k)a_{\nu,k}^{-1}=I_{\nu}(k) say, where

Iν(k)=∫𝐑ne−k(ϕ−t¯.ν)det(∇2ϕ)dt¯.I_{\nu}(k)=\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}e^{-k(\phi-\underline{t}.\nu)}\det(\nabla^{2}\phi)d\underline{t}. (8)

(Notice that these formulae make sense for any ν∈P¯\nu\in\overline{P} and the restriction to the lattice k−1​𝐙nk^{-1}{\bf Z}^{n} is not really relevant here.) So we see that our question reduces to the standard discussion of the asymptotic behaviour of the integral * as k→∞k\rightarrow\infty. The dominant contribution comes from the a neighbourhood of the point t¯0\underline{t}_{0} where ϕ−t¯.ν\phi-\underline{t}.\nu is minimal and the standard Laplace approximation is

Iν(k)∼(2πk)−n/2exp(−k(ϕ(t0)−t0ν))det∇2ϕ(t¯0).I_{\nu}(k)\sim(2\pi k)^{-n/2}{\rm exp}(-k(\phi(t_{0})-t_{0}\nu))\det\nabla^{2}\phi(\underline{t}_{0}).

But t¯0\underline{t}_{0} is just the point which corresponds to ν\nu under the Legendre transform, and ϕ⁡(t¯0)−t¯0.ν\phi(\underline{t}_{0})-\underline{t}_{0}.\nu is −u⁡(ν)-u(\nu). So

k−1​log⁡Iν​(k)=u⁡(ν)+O⁡(k−1​log⁡k),k^{-1}\log I_{\nu}(k)=u(\nu)+O(k^{-1}\log k),

and our result follows since k−1​log⁡k→0k^{-1}\log k\rightarrow 0 as k→∞k\rightarrow\infty.

Following on this line, it is easy to derive a special case of Tian’s Theorem from [29]. If we start with any Kahler metric with potential ϕ\phi, then use the aν(k)a_{\nu}^{(k)} as above to define an algebraic metric with potential ϕ(k)\phi^{(k)} then, after suitable normalisation the ϕ(k)\phi^{(k)} converge to ϕ\phi as k→∞k\rightarrow\infty. In particular the algebraic metrics are dense in the space of all metrics.

[02A4]

2.3.2 The Veronese embedding and the Central Limit theorem

Suppose, in the general situation, that the sections of LL generate the sections of LkL^{k} so that we have a surjective linear map

sk​(H0​(L))→H0​(Lk).s^{k}(H^{0}(L))\rightarrow H^{0}(L^{k}).

A metric on H0​(L)H^{0}(L) defines a metric on the symmetric power sk​(H0​(L))s^{k}(H^{0}(L)) in a standard way. Then we can define a metric on H0​(Lk)H^{0}(L^{k}) by identifying it with the orthogonal complement of the kernel of the map above. Then we can use this to define an algebraic Kahler metric on XX by the embedding ιk:X→𝐏⁡(H0​(Lk)∗)\iota_{k}:X\rightarrow{\bf P}(H^{0}(L^{k})^{*}). Now, up to a scale factor, these Kahler metrics are independent of kk. One way of seeing this is that the embedding ιk\iota_{k} is the composite of ι1\iota_{1}£ and the Veronese embedding

j:𝐏⁡(𝐂N)→𝐏⁡(sk​𝐂N),j:{\bf P}({\bf C}^{N})\rightarrow{\bf P}(s^{k}{\bf C}^{N}),

and, up to scale, jj is an isometry of the two Fubini-Study metrics.(This is forced by U⁡(N)U(N)-invariance.) So the same Kahler metric has a whole series of algebraic representations.

Let us see how this works in the toric case. We start with data aνa_{\nu} on P¯∩𝐙n\overline{P}\cap{\bf Z}^{n}. Then we can write

k​ϕ=log⁡(∑aν​eν.t¯)k=2​log​∑Bμ​eμ.t¯,k\phi=\log\left(\sum a_{\nu}e^{\nu.\underline{t}}\right)^{k}=2\log\sum B_{\mu}e^{\mu.\underline{t}},

where the coefficients BμB_{\mu} are

Bμ=∑ν1+…​νk=μaν1​aν2​…​aνk.B_{\mu}=\sum_{\nu_{1}+\dots\nu_{k}=\mu}a_{\nu_{1}}a_{\nu_{2}}\dots a_{\nu_{k}}.

So if we regard (aμ)(a_{\mu}) as a measure AA supported on the lattice points in P¯\overline{P} then the (Bμ)(B_{\mu}) represent the kk-fold convolution A∗…∗AA*\dots*A, supported on the lattice points in k​P¯k\overline{P}. Now rescale back to the fixed polytope PP, so we write bν(k)=Bk​νb_{\nu}^{(k)}=B_{k\nu}, for ν∈P¯∩k−1​𝐙n\nu\in\overline{P}\cap k^{-1}{\bf Z}^{n}. These define an admissible Kahler potential with Legendre transform k​uku, where uu is the Legendre transform of ϕ\phi. Then on compact subsets of PP we claim that

k−1​log⁡bν(k)=u+O⁡(k−1​log⁡k).k^{-1}\log b_{\nu}^{(k)}=u+O(k^{-1}\log k). (9)

This is essentially the Central Limit theorem, for the convolutions of the discrete measure AA. By applying a translation we can reduce to calculating at the point ν=0∈P\nu=0\in P. Changing the coefficients aνa_{\nu} to aν​ez.νa_{\nu}e^{z.\nu}, for any fixed z∈𝐑nz\in{\bf R}^{n}, does not change either side of (9), when ν=0\nu=0, so we can reduce to the case when ∑aν​ν=0\sum a_{\nu}\nu=0. That is to say, that ϕ\phi attains its minimum at the point t¯=0\underline{t}=0. Now we consider the function

f⁡(θ¯)=∑aν​ei​ν.θ¯.f(\underline{\theta})=\sum a_{\nu}e^{i\nu.\underline{\theta}}.

This is a finite trigonometric polynomial which can be regarded as a function on our compact torus TT. Then

b0(k)=∫Tfk​𝑑θ¯,b_{0}^{(k)}=\int_{T}f^{k}d\underline{\theta},

and our assertion follows from the stationary phase approximation, since the maximum value of |f||f| is ∑aν=u⁡(0)\sum a_{\nu}=u(0).

Of course ff is just the analytic continuation of eϕe^{\phi}, for our Kahler potential ϕ\phi. This makes one wonder if there may be other contexts when it is useful to consider such analytic continuations.

Example For each kk, the round metric on S2S^{2} is described as an algebraic metric with the coefficients aν=(kν)a_{\nu}=\left(\begin{array}[]{c}k\\ \nu\end{array}\right).

Notice that the asymptotics approximations we have discussed hold uniformly over compact subsets of the open polytope PP. The discussion near the boundary of PP is more delicate, because one gets different asymptotic models. A prototype is the different approximations—normal or Poisson–for the binomial distribution in different regimes.

[02A5]

2.4 Extremal metrics on toric varieties

The author has written at length on this topic in other papers, so we shall be rather brief here. Expressed in terms of a symplectic potential uu the condition for an extremal metric is that the scalar curvature

S⁡(u)=−ui​ji​j,S(u)=-u^{ij}_{ij},

is an affine-linear function on PP. More generally, it is natural in this context to consider the prescribed scalar curvature equation S⁡(u)=AS(u)=A for some given function AA on PP. This can be expressed as a variational problem. Recall that our polytope PP comes with preferred defining inequalities λr​(x¯)≥cr\lambda_{r}(\underline{x})\geq c_{r}. These linear functions λr\lambda_{r} define a measure d​σd\sigma on the boundary of PP (just a multiple of standard Lebesgue measure on each codimension-11 face). Then, given a function AA on PP we define a linear functional

LA​(f)=∫∂Pf​𝑑σ−∫PA​f​𝑑x¯.L_{A}(f)=\int_{\partial P}fd\sigma-\int_{P}Afd\underline{x}.

Now define a nonlinear functional by

ℱA(u)=LA(u)−∫Plogdet∇2udx¯.{\cal F}_{A}(u)=L_{A}(u)-\int_{P}\log\det\nabla^{2}u\ d\underline{x}.

Then an admissible symplectic potential uu which satisfies the equation ui​ji​j=−Au^{ij}_{ij}=-A is an absolute minimiser of the functional ℱA{\cal F}_{A}.

The functional ℱA{\cal F}_{A} is a variant of the Mabuchi functional, which is defined in the general Kahler context. It is a convex functional on the space of convex functions on the polytope PP. The equation ui​ji​j=−Au^{ij}_{ij}=-A, together with the Guillemin boundary conditions asserts that the functional LAL_{A} is represented by the inverse of the Hessian of uu in the sense that

LA​(f)=∫Pui​j​fi​j,L_{A}(f)=\int_{P}u^{ij}f_{ij}, (10)

for all test functions ff. We see immediately from this that if a solution uu is to exist then LAL_{A} must vanish on the affine linear functions ff. This is set of n+1n+1 linear constraints on the function AA. If we take AA to be the constant

Vol⁡(∂P,d​σ)Vol⁡(P,d​x¯),\frac{{\rm Vol}(\partial P,d\sigma)}{{\rm Vol}(P,d\underline{x})},

then LAL_{A} vanishes on the constant functions ff. The restriction of this functional LAL_{A} to the linear functions ff is the Futaki invariant, in this special setting. Otherwise said, this is essentially the difference between the centre of mass of (∂P,d​σ)(\partial P,d\sigma) in 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} and the centre of mass of (P,d​x¯)(P,d\underline{x}). If this Futaki invariant does not vanish then we cannot have a constant scalar curvature metric, but there is a unique affine-linear function AA satisfying the constraint above, and we seek an extremal metric with this prescribed scalar curvature.

It is not true that any toric variety admits an extremal metric. To see this observe that if a solution exists then the weak formulation (10) implies that LA​(f)≥0L_{A}(f)\geq 0 for convex functions ff (with strict inequality if ff is, say, smooth and not affine linear). But one can construct examples of toric surfaces where LAL_{A} does not satisfy this condition, for the affine-linear AA above. To fit this in with the discussion of Section 1, imagine following a minimising sequence u(α)u^{(\alpha)} for the functional ℱA{\cal F}_{A}, in the case when no solution exists (there would be a similar discussion for the Calabi functional). Then the typical phenomenon (which one can see explicitly in some simple examples, and probably holds in general) is that u(α)u^{(\alpha)} behaves like

u(α)∼Cα​v,u^{(\alpha)}\sim C_{\alpha}v,

where CαC_{\alpha} are real, Cα→∞C_{\alpha}\rightarrow\infty and vv is a piecewise-linear convex function on P¯\overline{P}. Differential geometrically this corresponds to the collapsing of some directions in the torus fibration over the parts of PP where the derivative of vv is discontinuous. Algebro-geometrically, the data vv describes a toric degeneration of XX into a singular toric variety X0X_{0} (at least, this is the case if vv is defined by “rational data”). In other words we have a picture much like that sketched in 1.1, except that rather than “jumping” to a different complex structure on the same underlying smooth manifold we have to allow singularities. (In fact a similar thing happens in the Yang-Mills case in higher dimensions, where the limiting structures may be sheaves rather than holomorphic bundles.)

In this way, one has a good understanding of one mechanism by which existence can fail. The more formidable problem is to see if this is the only way. More precisely, it is natural to make the

[02A6]
Conjecture 1

If P⊂𝐑nP\subset{\bf R}^{n} is a Delzant polytope and AA is a smooth function on P¯\overline{P} with the property that LA​(f)L_{A}(f) vanishes if ff is affine linear and LA​(f)>0L_{A}(f)>0 if ff is a convex function which is not affine linear, then there is an admissible symplectic potential satisfying the equation ui​ji​j=−Au_{ij}^{ij}=-A.

We refer to [9], [10], [11] for more information about this, particularly in the case when n=2n=2.

[02A7]

3 Toric Fano manifolds

[02A8]

3.1 The Kahler-Ricci soliton equation

The condition that a toric manifold XX be Fano, with L=KX−1L=K_{X}^{-1} is easily stated in terms of the polytope PP. There is a preferred “centre” ν0∈P\nu_{0}\in P such that for each face λr​(p0)−cr=1\lambda_{r}(p_{0})-c_{r}=1. This follows because the wedge product of the vector fields generating the action is a meromorphic nn-form on XX with a simple pole along each of the divisors corresponding to the faces. Then the inverse is a section of KX−1K_{X}^{-1} and is a multiple of the standard basis element sν0s_{\nu_{0}}. This centre is also the centre of mass of (∂P,d​σ)(\partial P,d\sigma).

In this Section we discuss a Theorem of Wang and Zhu [34].

[02A9]
Theorem 1

Any toric Fano manifold has a Kahler-Ricci soliton metric, unique up to holomorphic automorphisms

We will begin by giving a proof which is somewhat different to that of Wang and Zhu (although it borrows ideas from that paper and from [32]), working largely with the symplectic description. We can assume that the centre ν0\nu_{0} is the origin. Given a symplectic potential uu we write

h=xi​ui−u,h=x^{i}u_{i}-u,

and

L=logdet∇2u.L=\log\det\nabla^{2}u.

These are smooth functions on PP but both tend to infinity at the boundary. Note that hh depends on a choice of origin in 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}. Of course hh is just the composite of the Kahler potential ϕ\phi with the derivative of uu, mapping PP to 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}. The assumption that the toric manifold XX be Fano is equivalent to the fact that, for any admissible uu, the difference L−hL-h is a smooth function on P¯\overline{P}. The condition that uu describe a Kahler-Ricci soliton is that

L−h=∑ci​xi,L-h=\sum c_{i}x^{i}, (11)

for constants cic_{i} (which of course specify the relevant holomorphic vector field on the Kahler manifold). Just as in our discussion of extremal metrics, it is natural in this context to consider more generally an equation L−h=AL-h=A for some prescribed smooth function AA on P¯\overline{P}. Again, much as for the extremal case, there are elementary constraints that we need to impose on AA. For any symplectic potential uu we consider the integrals

∫Pxi​eL−h​𝑑x¯,\int_{P}x^{i}e^{L-h}d\underline{x},

for i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n. Transforming the integral to the dual space, it becomes

∫𝐑n∂ϕ∂tie−ϕdt¯=−∫𝐑[n∂e−ϕ∂ti=0.\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t_{i}}e^{-\phi}d\underline{t}=-\int_{{\bf R}^{[}n}\frac{\partial e^{-\phi}}{\partial t_{i}}=0.

So a necessary condition that the equation L−h=AL-h=A has a solution is that, for each ii,

∫Pxi​eA​𝑑x¯=0.\int_{P}x^{i}e^{A}d\underline{x}=0. (12)

This fixes the constants cic_{i} in (11). To see this, consider the function of c¯∈𝐑n\underline{c}\in{\bf R}^{n}:

F⁡(c¯)=∫Pe∑ci​xi​𝑑x¯F(\underline{c})=\int_{P}e^{\sum c_{i}x^{i}}d\underline{x}

This is convex and proper (since the origin lies in PP) and so has a unique critical point. But the derivative of FF with respect to cic_{i} is

∫Pxi​e∑ci​xi​𝑑x¯.\int_{P}x^{i}e^{\sum c_{i}x^{i}}\ d\underline{x}.

So the unique critical point of FF gives exactly the constants cic_{i} required to satisfy the constraint.

In sum, the theorem of Wang and Zhu follows from

[02AA]
Theorem 2

For any smooth function AA on P¯\overline{P} which satisfies the constraint (12) there is a solution uu to the equation L−h=AL-h=A, which is unique up to the addition of a linear function.

An equivalent statement is

For any smooth function AA on P¯\overline{P} there are constants γi\gamma_{i} and an admissible potential uu such that L−h=A+∑γi​xiL-h=A+\sum\gamma_{i}x^{i}. The γi\gamma_{i} are unique and uu is unique up to the addition of a linear function.

The equivalence of the statements follows from the same argument as above.

[02AB]

3.2 Continuity method, convexity and a fundamental inequality

For any symplectic potential uu on our Fano polytope, centred at the origin, we write ρ=L−h\rho=L-h. Now we define the following weighted norms, for functions f,gf,g on PP:

⟨f,g⟩u=∫Pf​g​eρ​𝑑x¯;\langle f,g\rangle_{u}=\int_{P}fge^{\rho}\ d\underline{x};
⟨∇f,∇g⟩u=∫Pfi​ga​ui​a​eρ​𝑑x¯;\langle\nabla f,\nabla g\rangle_{u}=\int_{P}f_{i}g_{a}u^{ia}e^{\rho}\ d\underline{x};
⟨∇2f,∇2g⟩u=∫Pfi​j​ga​b​ui​a​uj​b​eρ​𝑑x¯.\langle\nabla^{2}f,\nabla^{2}g\rangle_{u}=\int_{P}f_{ij}g_{ab}u^{ia}u^{jb}e^{\rho}\ d\underline{x}.

The first variation of ρ\rho with respect to an infinitesimal variation ff in uu is δ​ρ=□​f\delta\rho=\Box f, where □\Box is the differential operator

□​f=ui​j​fi​j−xi​fi+f.\Box f=u^{ij}f_{ij}-x^{i}f_{i}+f. (13)

Since

ρj=−uai​a​ua​j−xa​uj​a,\rho_{j}=-u^{ia}_{a}u^{aj}-x^{a}u_{ja},

this can also be written as

□​f=(ui​j​fi)j−u​i​j​ρj​fi+f,\Box f=\left(u^{ij}f_{i}\right)_{j}-u{ij}\rho_{j}f_{i}+f, (14)

from which it follows that

⟨□​f,g⟩u=−⟨∇f,∇g⟩u+⟨f,g⟩u.\langle\Box f,g\rangle_{u}=-\langle\nabla f,\nabla g\rangle_{u}+\langle f,g\rangle_{u}. (15)

In particular, □\Box is self-adjoint with respect to the weighted norm.

Now define a functional by

ℱ⁡(u)=∫Peρ​𝑑x¯.{\cal F}(u)=\int_{P}e^{\rho}\ d\underline{x}. (16)

Then the first variation is

δ​ℱ=∫P□​f​eρ​𝑑x¯=⟨□​f,1⟩u.\delta{\cal F}=\int_{P}\Box fe^{\rho}d\underline{x}=\langle\Box f,1\rangle_{u}. (17)

By the self-adjoint property we can also write this as

δ​ℱ=⟨f,□​1⟩u=⟨f,1⟩u=∫Pf​eρ​𝑑x¯.\delta{\cal F}=\langle f,\Box 1\rangle_{u}=\langle f,1\rangle_{u}=\int_{P}fe^{\rho}d\underline{x}. (18)

This leads to two different expressions for the second variation of ℱ{\cal F}. If we put ut=u+t​f,ρt=ρ⁡(ut)u_{t}=u+tf,\rho_{t}=\rho(u_{t}) and write □t\Box_{t} for the operator defined by utu_{t} then

dd​t​□t​f=−ui​a​uj​b​fi​j​fa​b.\frac{d}{dt}\Box_{t}f=-u^{ia}u^{jb}f_{ij}f_{ab}.

So,

d2d​t2​ℱ​(ut)=dd​t​∫P□t​f​eρt​𝑑x¯=∫P(□t​f​□t​f−ui​a​uj​b​fi​j​fa​b)​eρt​𝑑x¯,\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}{\cal F}(u_{t})=\frac{d}{dt}\int_{P}\Box_{t}fe^{\rho_{t}}d\underline{x}=\int_{P}\left(\Box_{t}f\Box_{t}f-u^{ia}u^{jb}f_{ij}f_{ab}\right)e^{\rho_{t}}d\underline{x},

which is equal to

⟨□t​f,□t​f⟩ut−⟨∇2f,∇2f⟩ut.\langle\Box_{t}f,\Box_{t}f\rangle_{u_{t}}-\langle\nabla^{2}f,\nabla^{2}f\rangle_{u_{t}}.

On the other hand

d2d​t2​ℱ​(ut)=dd​t​∫Pf​eρt​𝑑x¯=∫Pf​□t​f​eρt​𝑑x¯.\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}{\cal F}(u_{t})=\frac{d}{dt}\int_{P}fe^{\rho_{t}}d\underline{x}=\int_{P}f\Box_{t}fe^{\rho_{t}}d\underline{x}.

So, evaluating at t=0t=0 and dropping tt from the notation, we have the identity

⟨□​f,□​f⟩u−⟨∇2f,∇2f⟩u=⟨f,□​f⟩u.\langle\Box f,\Box f\rangle_{u}-\langle\nabla^{2}f,\nabla^{2}f\rangle_{u}=\langle f,\Box f\rangle_{u}. (19)

Applying (15), with g=□​fg=\Box f, this gives,

⟨∇f,∇□f⟩u=−⟨∇2f,∇2f⟩u.\langle\nabla f,\nabla\Box f\rangle_{u}=-\langle\nabla^{2}f,\nabla^{2}f\rangle_{u}. (20)

It is obvious from the definition that □\Box vanishes on the linear functions and □​1=1\Box 1=1. If ff is any eigenfunction of □\Box, with eigenvalue λ\lambda, which is orthogonal to the linear functions and then constants, then ∇2f\nabla^{2}f is non-zero and the identity gives

λ​⟨∇f,∇f⟩u=−⟨∇2f,∇2f⟩u,\lambda\langle\nabla f,\nabla f\rangle_{u}=-\langle\nabla^{2}f,\nabla^{2}f\rangle_{u},

so λ<0\lambda<0. (This is a variant of the standard lower bound on the eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a manifold with positive Ricci curvature, the identity can of course be verified more directly, but the argument above avoids some laborious manipulation.) In sum, we have derived an inequality

⟨1,f⟩u​⟨1,1⟩u−⟨f,□​f⟩u≥0,\langle 1,f\rangle_{u}\langle 1,1\rangle_{u}-\langle f,\Box f\rangle_{u}\geq 0, (21)

with equality if and only if ff is a linear function.

Now to apply this to our problem. First, we can use the continuity method for the equation L−h=A+∑γi​xiL-h=A+\sum\gamma_{i}x^{i}, with respect to variations in AA. The linearised equation is □u​f=δ​A+∑δ​γi​xi\Box_{u}f=\delta A+\sum\delta\gamma_{i}x^{i}. Since the cokernel of □u\Box_{u} is identified with the linear functions this linearised equation has a solution and we can apply the implicit function theorem in the usual way.

Second, we obtain the uniqueness of solutions. Consider the functional −log⁡ℱ-\log{\cal F}. Along a line ut=u+t​fu_{t}=u+tf we have

d2d​t2​(−log⁡ℱ)=1ℱ2​(ℱℱ′−ℱ′′)\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\left(-\log{\cal F}\right)=\frac{1}{{\cal F}^{2}}({\cal F}{\cal F}^{\prime}-{\cal F}^{\prime\prime})

where ℱ′,ℱ′′{\cal F}^{\prime},{\cal F}^{\prime\prime} denote the derivatives of ℱ{\cal F}. Evaluating at t=0t=0 we have

ℱ=⟨1,1⟩u,ℱ′=⟨1,f⟩u,ℱ′′=⟨f,□u​f⟩u,{\cal F}=\langle 1,1\rangle_{u},{\cal F}^{\prime}=\langle 1,f\rangle_{u},{\cal F}^{\prime\prime}=\langle f,\Box_{u}f\rangle_{u},

so our inequality (21) asserts that the second derivative of −log⁡ℱ-\log{\cal F} is positive, and strictly positive unless ff is affine-linear. Thus −log⁡ℱ-\log{\cal F} is a convex function. Now if ρ=A+∑γi​xi\rho=A+\sum\gamma_{i}x^{i} the γi\gamma_{i} are determined by AA, using the same argument as in the previous subsection. So we may as well suppose that γi=0\gamma_{i}=0. Then ℱ⁡(u)=C{\cal F}(u)=C where CC is the integral of eAe^{A}. The equation ρ=A\rho=A is the Euler-Lagrange equation for critical points of the linear function

u↦∫Pu​eA​𝑑x¯u\mapsto\int_{P}ue^{A}\ d\underline{x}

subject to the constraint −log⁡ℱ=−log⁡C-\log{\cal F}=-\log C. The convexity gives uniqueness, modulo linear functions.

[02AC]

3.3 A priori estimate

To prove Theorem 2 we need to establish appropriate a priori bounds on a solution to our equation. We proceed in five steps.

Step 1: Preliminaries

We want to appeal to some of the standard body of theory for compact Kahler manifolds, that is, where we consider a fixed reference metric ω0\omega_{0} on a compact manifold and another metric ω=ω0=i​∂¯​ψ\omega=\omega_{0}=i\overline{\partial}\psi. Our problem differs a little from that usually considered in the literature. To fit into a general setting we could consider a fixed smooth function GG of pp-variables, a compact Kahler manifold XX with pp fixed holomorphic vector fields vαv_{\alpha} and a function ψ\psi which satisfies an equation

(ω0+i​∂¯​ψ)n=exp⁡(ψ+G⁡(∇1ψ,…,∇pψ))(\omega_{0}+i\overline{\partial}\psi)^{n}=\exp(\psi+G(\nabla_{1}\psi,\dots,\nabla_{p}\psi))

where ∇αψ\nabla_{\alpha}\psi denotes the derivative of ψ\psi along the vector field vαv_{\alpha}. Then the modification by Tian and Zhu ([32], Section 5, especially Prop. 5.1) of the standard argument of Yau, shows that in this situation an L∞L^{\infty} bound on ψ\psi leads to bounds on all higher derivatives. (Apart from this the proof we give is self-contained.)

In our toric setting, we choose some fixed admissible Kahler potential ϕ0\phi_{0} on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} with Legendre transform u0u_{0}. Then we consider some general Kahler potential ϕ\phi, with Legendre transform uu and set ψ=ϕ−ϕ0\psi=\phi-\phi_{0}. So an L∞L^{\infty} bound on ψ\psi on the compact toric manifold is identical to an L∞L^{\infty} bound on ϕ−ϕ0\phi-\phi_{0} on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}. Now a general property of the Legendre transform is that it is an isometry with respect to the L∞L^{\infty} distance: that is to say

supt¯∈𝐑n|ϕ⁡(t¯)−ϕ0​(t¯)|=supx∈P|u⁡(x)−u0​(x)|.\sup_{\underline{t}\in{\bf R}^{n}}|\phi(\underline{t})-\phi_{0}(\underline{t})|=\sup_{x\in P}|u(x)-u_{0}(x)|.

This is an elementary exercise.

In our situation, u0u_{0} is a fixed continuous function on P¯\overline{P} so an L∞L^{\infty} bound on the function ψ\psi on the compact Kahler manifold is equivalent to an L∞L^{\infty} bound on the “unknown” symplectic potential uu.

In sum, we see that to prove our proposition it suffices to establish an a priori L∞L^{\infty} bound on symplectic potentials uu satisfying a differential inequality

|L−h|≤C,|L-h|\leq C, (22)

for fixed CC. Of course for this to make sense we have to normalise the non-uniqueness under the addition of linear functions, but we can do this very simply by restricting to functions uu whose derivative vanishes at the origin. i.e are minimised at the origin. We write m=−u⁡(0)m=-u(0) and M=maxP¯⁡(u−u⁡(0))M=\max_{\overline{P}}(u-u(0)) and our problem comes down to obtaining upper and lower bounds on mm and an upper bound on MM.

Step 2

Here we get a lower bound on m=−u⁡(0)m=-u(0). Let the polytope PP be contained in the R1R_{1} ball about 00 in 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} and fix R0>0R_{0}>0 to be (say) half the distance from 00 to the boundary of PP. We will work in “generalised” polar coordinates (r,θ)(r,\theta) on P⊂𝐑nP\subset{\bf R}^{n}, so

h=r​∂u∂r−u⁡(0)=r​∂u∂r+m.h=r\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}-u(0)=r\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}+m.

Now let Ω⊂P\Omega\subset P be the set where |∇u|≤1|\nabla u|\leq 1. Then for x∈Ωx\in\Omega we have |h⁡(x)−m|≤R1|h(x)-m|\leq R_{1} and the basic assumption (22) gives L≤m+R1+CL\leq m+R_{1}+C so

det(ui​j)≤exp⁡(m+R1+C).\det(u_{ij})\leq\exp(m+R_{1}+C).

But the integral of det(ui​j)\det(u_{ij}) over Ω\Omega gives the volume ωn\omega_{n} of the unit ball in 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} so

exp⁡(m+R1+C)​Vol​(Ω)≥ωn.\exp(m+R_{1}+C){\rm Vol}(\Omega)\geq\omega_{n}.

Since the volume of Ω\Omega cannot exceed the volume of PP this gives a lower bound on mm.

Step 3

Here we obtain a bound on local averages of hh, away from the origin. The bound depends on MM but, crucially, is O⁡(log⁡M)O(\log M).

For x∈Px\in P let d⁡(x)d(x) be the distance to the boundary. We consider points where d⁡(x)≤R0/2d(x)\leq R_{0}/2 and let BxB_{x} be the ball of radius d⁡(x)/2d(x)/2 centred at xx. So BxB_{x} is contained in PP and if y∈Bxy\in B_{x} the norm |y||y| is greater than R0R_{0}. Thus on BxB_{x} we have

∂u∂r≤1R0​(h−m).\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}\leq\frac{1}{R_{0}}(h-m).

Now we have an obvious bound, at any point yy,

|∇u|≤Md⁡(y).|\nabla u|\leq\frac{M}{d(y)}.

For y∈Bxy\in B_{x} the distance d⁡(y)d(y) is at least d⁡(x)/2d(x)/2, so |∇u|≤2​M/d⁡(x)|\nabla u|\leq 2M/d(x) on BxB_{x}. This means that the derivative of uu maps BxB_{x} into a ball of radius 2​M/d⁡(x)2M/d(x) hence

∫Bxdet∇2u​𝑑x¯≤ωn​(2​Md⁡(x))n.\int_{B_{x}}\det\nabla^{2}u\ d\underline{x}\leq\omega_{n}\left(\frac{2M}{d(x)}\right)^{n}.

Thus we have a bound on the average, in an obvious notation,

Av⁡(det∇2u,Bx)≤(2​M)nd​(x)2​n.{\rm Av}(\det\nabla^{2}u,B_{x})\leq\frac{(2M)^{n}}{d(x)^{2n}}.

Now the concavity of the logarithm means that

Av(logdet∇2u,Bx)≤log(Av(det∇2u,Bx)),{\rm Av}(\log\det\nabla^{2}u,B_{x})\leq\log({\rm Av}(\det\nabla^{2}u,B_{x})),

so

Av⁡(L,Bx)≤log⁡((2​M)nd​(x)2​n)=n​log⁡(2​M)−2​n​log⁡d⁡(x).{\rm Av}(L,B_{x})\leq\log\left(\frac{(2M)^{n}}{d(x)^{2n}}\right)=n\log(2M)-2n\log d(x).

Now Av⁡(h,Bx)≤Av⁡(L,Bx)+C{\rm Av}(h,B_{x})\leq{\rm Av}(L,B_{x})+C and Av⁡(∂u∂r,Bx)≤R0−1​Av​(h,Bx)−m/R0{\rm Av}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial r},B_{x})\leq R_{0}^{-1}{\rm Av}(h,B_{x})-m/R_{0}. Putting this together we get

Av⁡(∂u∂r,Bx)≤c1​log⁡M+c2−c3​log⁡d−mR0,{\rm Av}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial r},B_{x})\leq c_{1}\log M+c_{2}-c_{3}\log d-\frac{m}{R_{0}}, (23)

for known cic_{i}.

Step 4

Here we give an elementary geometric argument to relate the average value of the radial derivative ∂ru=∂u∂r\partial_{r}u=\frac{\partial u}{\partial r} to the growth of the function uu, using convexity. We will write κi\kappa_{i} for positive constants depending on the Euclidean geometry of the polytope PP.

For δ≥0\delta\geq 0 consider the slightly smaller polytope (1−δ)​P(1-\delta)P. Fix δ0\delta_{0} so that if δ<δ0\delta<\delta_{0} this polytope contains the ball of radius R0R_{0} about the origin. Let M⁡(δ)M(\delta) be the maximum value of u−u⁡(0)u-u(0) on (1−δ)​P¯(1-\delta)\overline{P}, so M⁡(δ)M(\delta) increases to MM as δ\delta decreases to 00. For each vertex pp on PP let fp​(δ)=u⁡((1−δ)​p)−u⁡(0)f_{p}(\delta)=u((1-\delta)p)-u(0). Then clearly

M⁡(δ)=maxp⁡fp​(δ).M(\delta)=\max_{p}f_{p}(\delta).

Suppose that at a given small δ\delta the maximum is attained by fpf_{p}, for a certain vertex pp. We want to show that the derivative fp′​(δ)f^{\prime}_{p}(\delta) satisfies a bound of the same form as our bound on the local averages of ∂ru\partial_{r}u. To see this consider the point p′=(1−δ2)​pp^{\prime}=(1-\frac{\delta}{2})p. It is obvious that p′p^{\prime} is contained in the interior of the convex hull of pp and (1−δ)​P¯(1-\delta)\overline{P}. It will be equally clear to the reader who draws a diagram that if qq is any point within distance κ1​δ\kappa_{1}\delta of pp then p′p^{\prime} is in the interior of the convex hull of qq and (1−δ)​P¯(1-\delta)\overline{P}. Thus a convex set containing (1−δ)​P¯(1-\delta)\overline{P} and with p′p^{\prime} on its boundary cannot contain any point within distance κ1​δ\kappa_{1}\delta of pp.

With this discussion in place we can quickly complete the proof. Let ZZ be the value of the radial derivative ∂ru\partial_{r}u at the point (1−δ)​p(1-\delta)p. Then

u⁡(p′)≥u⁡((1−δ)​p)+κ2​Z​δu(p^{\prime})\geq u((1-\delta)p)+\kappa_{2}Z\delta

Let KK be the closed convex set of points x∈P¯x\in\overline{P} where u⁡(x)≤u⁡(p′)u(x)\leq u(p^{\prime}). By the principle above, KK cannot meet the κ1​δ\kappa_{1}\delta ball about pp. Let σ\sigma be any ray from the origin through a point qq which is within κ1​δ\kappa_{1}\delta of pp. Then there are t<t′<1t<t^{\prime}<1 such that t​qtq is in the boundary of (1−δ)​P(1-\delta)P and t′​qt^{\prime}q is in the boundary of KK. Since u⁡(t​q)≤u⁡((1−δ​p))u(tq)\leq u((1-\delta p)) the increase in uu along the segment from t​qtq to t′​qt^{\prime}q is at least κ2​Z​δ\kappa_{2}Z\delta. But the length of this segment is at most O⁡(δ)O(\delta) and the radial derivative is increasing, so we see that the radial derivative ∂ru\partial_{r}u is at least κ3​Z\kappa_{3}Z at the point t′​qt^{\prime}q, and hence a fortiori at qq. Now by comparing with the average of the radial derivative over a suitable ball of radius κ4​δ\kappa_{4}\delta we deduce that, after adjusting the constants cic_{i} appropriately, we have

M′​(δ)≥−(c1​log⁡M+c2−c3​log⁡δ−κ​5​mR0CLOSE.M^{\prime}(\delta)\geq-(c_{1}\log M+c_{2}-c_{3}\log\delta-\frac{\kappa{5}m}{R_{0}}. (24)

Step 5

Since the logarithm function is integrable around 00 we deduce from (24), by integrating over δ\delta, that

M≤M⁡(δ0)+C′​(log⁡M+1)−ϵ​m,M\leq M(\delta_{0})+C^{\prime}(\log M+1)-\epsilon m,

for known ϵ,C′>0\epsilon,C^{\prime}>0. The convexity of uu gives

M⁡(δ0)≤(1−δ0)​M.M(\delta_{0})\leq(1-\delta_{0})M.

So

δ0​M≤(C⁡(log⁡M+1)−ϵ​m).\delta_{0}M\leq(C(\log M+1)-\epsilon m).

Since log⁡M\log M is o⁡(M)o(M) for large MM this has no solutions if mm is large, so we get an upper bound on mm. On the other hand, the lower bound on mm obtained in Step 1 gives an upper bound on MM and we are finished.

[02AD]

3.4 The method of Wang and Zhu

We will now discuss briefly the original approach of Wang and Zhu. For simplicity we will just consider the case when the Futaki invariant vanishes, so we seek a Kahler-Einstein metric. Recall from the above that the vanishing Futaki invariant is equivalent to fact that the centre of mass of the polytope PP is the preferred centre, which we are taking as 0∈𝐑n0\in{\bf R}^{n}.

Wang and Zhu use the continuity method with respect to the family of equations

det(∇2ϕ)=exp⁡(−(s​ϕ+(1−s)​f)),\det(\nabla^{2}\phi)=\exp(-(s\phi+(1-s)f)), (25)

where ff is a fixed admissible Kahler potential and 0≤s<10\leq s<1. We discuss first the case when s=0s=0. Then the equation in question is just the toric case of the “prescribed volume form” equation, solved, for general Kahler manifolds, by Yau. But let us see how to give a simple proof in this special situation. As we have seen it suffices to bound the L∞L^{\infty} norm of the symplectic potential uu corresponding to ϕ\phi. We can apply the Sobolev inequality so for each p>np>n there is a cpc_{p} such that

OscP​(u)≤cp​‖∇u‖Lp.{\rm Osc}_{P}(u)\leq c_{p}\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}}.

So we conclude that in our problem it suffices to find CC such that there is some point x∈Px\in P with −C≤u⁡(x)≤C-C\leq u(x)\leq C and ‖∇u‖Lp≤C.\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}}\leq C.

The equation (25) with s=0s=0 is degenerate, in that we can obviously change ϕ\phi by the addition of a constant, so we may normalise uu to be zero at some point. Thus all we need to do is bound the LpL^{p} norm of ∇u\nabla u. But for this we simply write

∫P|∇u|p​𝑑x¯=∫𝐑n|t¯|p​det∇2ϕ​𝑑t¯=∫𝐑n|t¯|p​e−f​𝑑t¯<∞.\int_{P}|\nabla u|^{p}\ d\underline{x}=\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}|\underline{t}|^{p}\det\nabla^{2}\phi\ d\underline{t}=\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}|\underline{t}|^{p}e^{-f}\ d\underline{t}<\infty.

This concludes the proof of the L∞L^{\infty} estimate for the case s=0s=0. (Here we have not used the fact that ff is convex, so by deforming ff one can prove the toric case of Yau’s Theorem: the existence of a solution for any ff.)

Now we go on to the main case, when s>0s>0. It suffices to obtain estimates for s≥s0s\geq s_{0} for some fixed s0>0s_{0}>0.

Set w=s​ϕ+(1−s)​fw=s\phi+(1-s)f. Then ww is another admissible function and

det(∇2w)≥s0n​det(∇2ϕ)=s0n​e−w.\det(\nabla^{2}w)\geq s_{0}^{n}\det(\nabla^{2}\phi)=s_{0}^{n}e^{-w}.

Let the minimal value of ww be mm, attained at a point ζ∈𝐑n\zeta\in{\bf R}^{n}. The first main step in the proof is

[02AE]
Proposition 1

We have

w⁡(t¯)≥ϵ​|t¯−ζ|−Cw(\underline{t})\geq\epsilon|\underline{t}-\zeta|-C

for known ϵ,C\epsilon,C.

The foundation of the approach of Wang and Zhu is the following fact.

[02AF]
Proposition 2

Suppose that vv is a convex function on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}, attaining minimal value 00, and suppose det(∇2v)≥λ\det(\nabla^{2}v)\geq\lambda when v≤1v\leq 1. Then if KK is the set where v≤1v\leq 1 we have Vol(K)≤Cλ−1/2{\rm Vol}(K)\leq C\lambda^{-1/2} for some constant CC depending only on the dimension nn.

Wang and Zhu prove this using a comparison argument. It can also be shown using the elementary geometry of the derivative of vv (see [17] Prop. 3.2.3), but both approaches depend on the fact that after a unimodular affine transformation we can suppose that there are concentric balls

B⁡(R1)⊂K⊂B⁡(R2),B(R_{1})\subset K\subset B(R_{2}),

with the ratio R2/R1R_{2}/R_{1} of the radii bounded by a fixed constant depending on the dimension. Notice that a reverse inequality holds. If in the same situation det(∇2v)≤Λ\det(\nabla^{2}v)\leq\Lambda then Vol(K)≥CΛ−1/2{\rm Vol}(K)\geq C\Lambda^{-1/2} ([17], Cor. 3.2.4).

With this background in place we can proceed to explain the proof of Wang and Zhu. Let mm be the minimal value of the function ww and set v=w−mv=w-m. Then det(∇2v)≥λ=t0n​em+1\det(\nabla^{2}v)\geq\lambda=t_{0}^{n}e^{m+1} on the set KK where v≤1v\leq 1. So we deduce that

Vol(K)≤Cλ−1/2=C′em/2,{\rm Vol}(K)\leq C\lambda^{-1/2}=C^{\prime}e^{m/2}, (26)

say. For each positive hh let KhK_{h} be the set {v≤h}\{v\leq h\} and V⁡(h)=Vol⁡(Kh)V(h)={\rm Vol}(K_{h}). Then convexity implies that KhK_{h} is contained in the dilate of KK by factor hh about the minimum point of vv. Thus

V⁡(h)=Vol⁡(Kh)≤hn​Vol​(K)≤hn​C′​em/2.V(h)={\rm Vol}(K_{h})\leq h^{n}{\rm Vol}(K)\leq h^{n}C^{\prime}e^{m/2}.

By the co-area formula

∫𝐑ne−w​𝑑t¯=∫0∞e−h​V​(h)​𝑑h.\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}e^{-w}\ d\underline{t}=\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-h}V(h)\ dh.

Now the volume form det(∇2ϕ)\det(\nabla^{2}\phi) is at most e−m​e−ve^{-m}e^{-v} and its integral is the volume of our manifold XX. So

Vol(X)≤e−m∫0∞C′em/2e−hhndh=C′′e−m/2,{\rm Vol}(X)\leq e^{-m}\int_{0}^{\infty}C^{\prime}e^{m/2}e^{-h}h^{n}\ dh=C^{\prime\prime}e^{-m/2},

say. We see that

m≤m0=2​log⁡(I0/C′′),m\leq m_{0}=2\log(I_{0}/C^{\prime\prime}), (27)

and then deduce from (26) that

Vol⁡(K)≤C′​em0/2.{\rm Vol}(K)\leq C^{\prime}e^{m_{0}/2}. (28)

Now we use the fact that |∇w|≤b|\nabla w|\leq b say. This means that the distance from the boundary of KK to the minimum point ζ\zeta. is at least b−1b^{-1}, so KK contains a ball of this fixed radius about ζ\zeta. If KK contains a point ζ′\zeta^{\prime} with |ζ−ζ′|=R|\zeta-\zeta^{\prime}|=R for large RR, then the volume of KK would be large, contradicting the bound (28). So we conclude that KK is contained in the ball {ζ′:|ζ′−ζ|≤R0}\{\zeta^{\prime}:|\zeta^{\prime}-\zeta|\leq R_{0}\} for some fixed R0R_{0}. But then convexity implies that

|ξ−ζ|≤R0−1​v​(ξ).|\xi-\zeta|\leq R_{0}^{-1}v(\xi).

This completes the proof of Proposition 1.

The second main step is to show that |ζ||\zeta| is not large. This is where the hypothesis that the the Futaki invariant vanishes is used. Consider the derivative D​fDf of the fixed admissible function ff. This is a vector-valued function on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}, which gives a proper map to the open polytope PP. The crucial thing is an identity

∫𝐑nD​f​e−w​𝑑t¯=0.\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}Dfe^{-w}\ d\underline{t}=0. (29)

To see this, consider one component ∂f∂ta=fa\frac{\partial f}{\partial t_{a}}=f^{a} of D​fDf, and observe first that

∫𝐑n((1−s)​∂f∂ta+s​∂ϕ∂ta)​e−w​𝑑t¯=∫𝐑n∂w∂ta​e−w​𝑑t¯=0.\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}\left((1-s)\frac{\partial f}{\partial t_{a}}+s\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t_{a}}\right)e^{-w}\ d\underline{t}=\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}\frac{\partial w}{\partial t_{a}}e^{-w}\ d\underline{t}=0.

So it is the same to show that

∫𝐑n∂ϕ∂ta​e−w​𝑑t¯=0.\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t_{a}}e^{-w}\ d\underline{t}=0.

But this integral is

∫𝐑n∂ϕ∂ta​det(ϕa​b)​𝑑t¯\int_{\bf R}^{n}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t_{a}}\det(\phi_{ab})\ d\underline{t}

which is the same as

∫Pxa​𝑑x¯\int_{P}x^{a}\ d\underline{x}

and this vanishes by our hypothesis.

Consider a codimension-11 face of PP defined by an equation λr​(x)=cr\lambda_{r}(x)=c_{r}. Let grg_{r} be the function

gr​(t¯)=log⁡(λr​(D​f​(t¯))−cr).g_{r}(\underline{t})=\log(\lambda_{r}(Df(\underline{t}))-c_{r}).

It is easy to check that the derivative of grg_{r} is bounded on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}. Suppose |ζ||\zeta| is large. This means that D​f​(ζ)Df(\zeta) is close to the boundary of PP, so there is some rr for which gr​(ζ)g_{r}(\zeta) is very negative gr​(ζ)≤−Mg_{r}(\zeta)\leq-M say, for MM large. Then the bound on the derivative of grg_{r} means that we can find a constant σ\sigma such that on the ball BB of radius σ​M\sigma M about ζ\zeta we have gr≤−M/2g_{r}\leq-M/2. Thus λr​(D​f)≥cr/2\lambda_{r}(Df)\geq c_{r}/2 say, on BB, if MM is large enough. Equally, it follows from Proposition 1 that when MM is large the integral of e−we^{-w} over 𝐑n∖B{\bf R}^{n}\setminus B is small. This shows that

∫𝐑nλr​(D​F)​e−w>0,\int_{{\bf R}^{n}}\lambda_{r}(DF)e^{-w}>0,

if MM is large, which is a contradiction to the identity (29) above.

It is now easy to complete the proof. Since ζ\zeta is bounded we have

w⁡(t¯)≥ϵ​|t¯|−cw(\underline{t})\geq\epsilon|\underline{t}|-c

and the bound on the LpL^{p} norm of ∇u\nabla u follows just as before. Then it is straightforward to get upper and lower bounds on uu at some point, for example the point corresponding to ζ\zeta.

[02AG]

4 Variants of toric differential geometry

[02AH]

4.1 Multiplicity-free manifolds

The special features of toric differential geometry can be traced back to the fact that the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms which commute with the action is abelian. In general, the action of a compact group GG on a symplectic manifold (M,ω)(M,\omega) is called “multiplicity-free” if it has this property. This is equivalent to saying that the all the GG-invariant functions Poisson-commute. The theory has been developed by a number of authors. The analogous notion in algebraic geometry is that of a spherical variety. The theory of extremal metrics and the Mabuchi functional in this setting has been studied by Alexeev and Katzarkov [2] and by Raza [27] and Podesta and Spiro [25] have extended the theorem of Wang and Zhu for Fano manifolds in this direction. There is also related work of Bielwaski [5]. We will now outline some of these ideas.

There is a general classification of multiplicity-free manifolds ([35], [20]), but rather than attempting to discuss the most general situation we focus on a simple class of examples. Pick a maximal torus TT in the compact connected Lie group GG and let VV be the dual of the Lie algebra of TT. There is a weight lattice Λ⊂V\Lambda\subset V. Pick a positive Weyl chamber in VV and consider an integral Delzant polytope PP whose closure is contained in the interior of this chamber. We construct a manifold from this data and as usual we can take either a symplectic or complex point of view.

Complex

The choice of a Weyl chamber defines a Borel subgroup BB of the complexified group GcG^{c}, containing the complexified torus TcT_{c}. For example if G=U⁡(m)G=U(m) the Borel subgroup is the group of complex matrices with zeros below the diagonal. Then we have a generalised flag manifold Y=Gc/BY=G^{c}/B, which is a compact complex manifold. There is a homomorphism from BB to TcT^{c} which is a left inverse to the inclusion. Now form the toric manifold XX associated to the polytope PP. Then TcT^{c} acts holomorphically on XX and so BB does also via the homorphism above. So we get a complex manifold

Z=Gc×BX,Z=G^{c}\times_{B}X, (30)

with a holomorphic fibration π:Z→Y\pi:Z\rightarrow Y, having fibre XX. The group GcG^{c} acts on ZZ and π\pi is a KcK^{c}-equivariant map. Further, we have a TcT^{c}-equivariant line bundle L→XL\rightarrow X so the same construction yields a GcG^{c}-equivariant line bundle ℒ→Z{\cal L}\rightarrow Z which restricts to LL on each fibre. We can identify H0​(Z,ℒ)H^{0}(Z,{\cal L}) with the sections of the vector bundle π∗​(ℒ)\pi_{*}({\cal L}) over FF. Recall that there is a standard basis for H0​(X,L)H^{0}(X,L) labelled by the lattice points ν\nu in P¯\overline{P}. This yields an isomorphism between π∗​(ℒ)\pi_{*}({\cal L}) and the direct sum of line bundles ξν→F\xi_{\nu}\rightarrow F associated to these weights. The Borel-Weil theorem asserts that the holomorphic sections of ξν\xi_{\nu} define the irreducible representation WνW_{\nu} of GcG^{c} with highest weight ν\nu. So we see that, as a representation of GcG^{c},

H0​(Z,ℒ)=⨁ν∈P¯Wν.H^{0}(Z,{\cal L})=\bigoplus_{\nu\in\overline{P}}W_{\nu}.

In particular the representation is “multiplicity-free”, in the sense that all irreducibles appear with multiplicity at most one. This is the same as saying that the algebra of GcG^{c}-equivariant endomorphisms of H0​(Z,ℒ)H^{0}(Z,{\cal L}) is commutative. The terminology “multiplicity free” in the symplectic setting is derived by analogy with this.

Notice that replacing PP by a multiple k​PkP yields the same complex manifold ZZ but replaces ℒ{\cal L} by ℒk{\cal L}^{k}. Translating PP by ν\nu does not change ZZ but changes the line bundle ℒ{\cal L} to ℒ⊗π∗​(ξν){\cal L}\otimes\pi^{*}(\xi_{\nu}). In none of the above do we use the fact that P¯\overline{P} lies in the interior of the positive Weyl chamber. This is exactly the condition which implies that ℒ{\cal L} is an ample line bundle over ZZ.

Example Take G=S​U​(2)G=SU(2), so VV can be identified with 𝐑{\bf R} and the positive Weyl chamber with the positive reals. Let PP be the interval (p1,p2)(p_{1},p_{2}). Then X=Y=𝐂𝐏1X=Y={\bf C}{\bf P}^{1} and ZZ is the blow-up of the complex projective plane atone point. As p1,p2p_{1},p_{2} vary we get all positive line bundles ℒ{\cal L} over ZZ.

For the symplectic description we start by writing Y=G/TY=G/T, and think of GG as a principal TT-bundle over YY. As a manifold ZZ is the associated bundle G×TXG\times_{T}X. Now TT has a Hamiltonian action on XX. In general suppose a Lie group KK has a Hamiltonian action on a symplectic manifold (M,Ω)(M,\Omega) and we have a principal KK-bundle E→UE\rightarrow U. Then there is a canonical closed 22-form Ω~\tilde{\Omega} on the associated bundle E×KME\times_{K}M which restricts to Ω\Omega (in the obvious sense) on each fibre. Indeed this is true in the “universal” case when we take the group of all Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of a symplectic manifold. This theory is explained in detail in [21], Sect. 6.1). It is easy to say explicitly how this works in the case at hand. Choose a basis of V=Lie​(T)∗V={\rm Lie}(T)^{*}. The basis elements can be regarded as left-invariant 11-forms αi\alpha_{i} on GG and also as the components of a connection form on the TT-bundle G→YG\rightarrow Y. The moment map μ:X→V\mu:X\rightarrow V has components, relative to this basis, which we denote by xix^{i}, in line with our previous notation. Since the moment map is equivariant we can also regard μ\mu as a map from ZZ to VV and the components xix^{i} as functions on ZZ. Restrict to the open set Z0⊂ZZ_{0}\subset Z corresponding to the open set X0⊂XX_{0}\subset X where TT acts freely. This can be identified with the product P×GP\times G, so we can also regard αi\alpha_{i} as 11-forms on X0X_{0}. Then we set

Ω~=d⁡(∑xi​αi)\tilde{\Omega}=d(\sum x^{i}\alpha_{i})

on Z0Z_{0}. On each fibre the 11-forms αi\alpha_{i} can be identified with the d​θid\theta_{i} and we recover the form ∑d​xi​d​θi\sum dx^{i}d\theta_{i}. The point is that, although the 11-forms αi\alpha_{i} do not extend over ZZ, the closed 22-form Ω~\tilde{\Omega} does. This is fairly clear from the corresponding discussion on the fibres. The condition that P¯\overline{P} lies inside an open Weyl chamber is exactly the condition that the form Ω~\tilde{\Omega} is symplectic. The GG-invariant functions on ZZ are just the composite of μ\mu with functions on P¯\overline{P} and these all Poisson-commute.

An important object in this theory is the “Duistermaat-Heckmann”function WW on V=Lie​(T)∗V={\rm Lie}(T)^{*}. It is a polynomial function which, on the open Weyl chamber, gives the symplectic volume of the corresponding coadjoint orbit. Algebraically it is the product of the positive roots, where the roots are viewed as linear functions on VV. The push-forward μ∗​(Ω~N)\mu_{*}(\tilde{\Omega}^{N})of the symplectic measure on ZZ is the restriction to P¯\overline{P} of (2​π)n​W(2\pi)^{n}W times the Lebesgue measure on VV. Thus if we identify functions on P¯\overline{P} with GG-invariant functions on ZZ the operation of integration over ZZ corresponds to the weighted integral

∫P¯f​W​𝑑x¯.\int_{\overline{P}}fWd\underline{x}. (31)

Raza extended the symplectic point of view on toric differential geometry, as outlined (2.1.2) above, to this setting [27]. The orthogonal complement with respect to Ω~\tilde{\Omega} defines a field of horizontal subspaces in ZZ, transverse to the fibres. Any GG-invariant almost-complex structure on ZZ, compatible with Ω~\tilde{\Omega}, must respect this decomposition and agree with the standard complex structure, induced from YY, in the horizontal subspace. So such almost-complex structures correspond to the same TT-invariant almost-complex structures on XX which we studied before, and the integrable structures are determined by an admissible symplectic potential uu on P¯\overline{P}, as before. The whole difference in the theory resides in the weight function WW. Raza shows that the scalar curvature of the metric on ZZ defined by a symplectic potential uu is

1W​∂2W​ui​j∂xi​∂xj+fG,\frac{1}{W}\ \frac{\partial^{2}Wu^{ij}}{\partial x^{i}\partial x^{j}}+f_{G},

where fGf_{G} is function determined by the group GG. In fact if we let σ∈Lie​(T)∗\sigma\in{\rm Lie}(T)^{*} be the sum of the positive roots of GG then

fG=W−1​(Wi​σi):f_{G}=W^{-1}(W_{i}\sigma^{i}):

the derivative of log⁡W\log W in the direction σ\sigma. This extends Abreu’s formula in the toric case, and also a formula of Calabi, for the case when K=S​U​(2)K=SU(2) ([6], [18]). There there seems to be considerable scope for extending the analytical theory developed in the toric case to this more general setting, similar to the work of Szekelyhidi in [28].

Now we consider the Fano case, where the line bundle ℒ{\cal L} is KZ−1K_{Z}^{-1}. This requires, first, that the fibre XX be Fano. Recall that there is a preferred centre ν0\nu_{0} in PP (the centre of mass of the boundary). The second requirement, to identify ℒ{\cal L} with KZ−1K_{Z}^{-1}, is that ν0\nu_{0} is equal to σ\sigma, the sum of the positive roots. (To see this, observe that the line bundle over YY associated to the weight σ\sigma is the KY−1K_{Y}^{-1}.) In Section 3 we took this centre to be the origin, but here that would conflict with the Weyl chamber structure. So, given a polytope PP satisfying these two conditions above, and an admissible symplectic potential uu, we define

h=(xi−σi)​ui−u.h=(x^{i}-\sigma^{i})u_{i}-u.

Then L−hL-h is smooth on P¯\overline{P}. The Ricci soliton condition is

L−h=G+∑ci​xi,L-h=G+\sum c_{i}x^{i},

for suitable constants cic_{i}. This falls into the class of equations we considered in 3.2, and the existence theorem of Podesta and Spiro is another illustration of our result there.

What we have discussed is the simplest class of multiplicity-free manifolds. One gets other examples in at least two ways.

  • •

    One can allow the boundary of P¯\overline{P} to touch the boundary of the Weyl chamber.

  • •

    One can consider polytopes contained in proper affine subspaces of Lie​(T)∗{\rm Lie}(T)^{*}.

There seems to be considerable scope for developing this theory, both in the Fano case and for extremal metrics. In the latter case one could hope to extend the results proved for toric varieties, along the lines of the work of Szekelyhidi [28] in the case when G=S​U​(2)G=SU(2).

[02AI]

4.2 Manifolds with a dense orbit

Now we consider another generalisation of toric geometry. Let GG be a compact Lie group and GcG^{c} its complexification. Suppose GcG^{c} acts holomorphically on a compact complex manifold VV and that there is a point x0∈Vx_{0}\in V whose GcG^{c} orbit is dense. We also want to suppose that the stabiliser Γ⊂Gc\Gamma\subset G^{c} is finite. Then the orbit is a copy of Gc/ΓG^{c}/\Gamma in VV and the complement is an analytic subvariety (which must contain a divisor if XX is Kahler). Of course the case of a toric manifold fits into this picture, except that in that case we can assume Γ\Gamma is trivial (but see the further discussion below). In the next section we will study a particular example of this set-up: the Mukai-Umemura manifold.

Now there is no loss of generality in supposing that Γ\Gamma lies in the compact group GG and we can study GG-invariant Kahler metrics on VV. Over the dense orbit these can be represented by Kahler potentials Φ\Phi on GcG^{c} which are invariant under the two groups GG (acting by left multiplication) and Γ\Gamma (acting by right multiplication). In other words, Φ\Phi can be regarded as a function on the symmetric space M=Gc/GM=G^{c}/G which is invariant under the action of the finite group Γ\Gamma on MM. We will denote the corresponding function on MM by ϕ\phi.

A finite group Γ\Gamma can enter in the toric case in slightly different way, but leading to the same conclusion. Suppose Γ\Gamma is a finite subgroup of G​L​(n,𝐙)GL(n,{\bf Z}) which preserves the polytope PP of a toric manifold XX. (For example if XX is 𝐂𝐏n{\bf C}{\bf P}^{n}, so PP is the standard simplex, we can take Γ\Gamma to be the permutations of the nn coordinates.) Then there is a group T^\hat{T} which fits into a split exact sequence

1→T→T^→Γ→11\rightarrow T\rightarrow\hat{T}\rightarrow\Gamma\rightarrow 1 (32)

and which acts on XX. As a toric manifold, we know that we can represent TT-invariant Kahler metrics on XX by potentials ϕ\phi on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n}, but now we can further restrict to T^\hat{T}-invariant metrics and these correspond to Γ\Gamma-invariant functions ϕ\phi, for the natural action of Γ\Gamma on 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} (of course, this copy of 𝐑n{\bf R}^{n} is really the dual of that containing PP).

We now develop the local Kahler differential geometry in this situation, working in terms of a function ϕ\phi on the symmetric space MM. This has a standard connection on its tangent bundle, which is the Levi-Civita connection for any GcG^{c}-invariant metric. Thus we have a Hessian operator ∇2\nabla^{2} taking functions on MM to sections of s2​(T∗​M)s^{2}(T^{*}M). The tangent space of VV at a point g​x0gx_{0} can be identified with the complexification of the tangent space of MM at the point G​gGg. Thus we have an identification with the symmetric tensors s2​(T∗​M)s^{2}(T^{*}M) at G​gGg with a subspace of Λ1,1​T​Gc\Lambda^{1,1}TG^{c} at gg. This just corresponds to embedding the real symmetric matrices in the complex Hermitian matrices.

[02AJ]
Lemma 1

Under this identification for any function ϕ\phi on MM and corresponding function Φ\Phi on GcG^{c} the form i​∂∂¯​Φi\partial\overline{\partial}\Phi corresponds to ∇2ϕ\nabla^{2}\phi.

We can see this as follows. First note that in the toric case this is just what we have seen when we identify the Kahler metric with the Hessian ϕa​b\phi^{ab}. For the general case, there is no loss in working at the point g=1g=1. To evaluate ∇2ϕ\nabla^{2}\phi on a tangent vector vv we take the geodesic γ⁡(t)\gamma(t) in MM starting with initial velocity vv. Then

∇2ϕ​(v)=d2d​t2​ϕ​(γ),\nabla^{2}\phi(v)=\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\phi(\gamma),

evaluated at 00. Now geodesics in Gc/GG^{c}/G through the identity coset correspond to 11-parameter subgroups in GcG^{c} so we have a homomorphism γ~:𝐂→Gc\tilde{\gamma}:{\bf C}\rightarrow G^{c}, such that γ⁡(t)=K​γ~​(i​t)∈M\gamma(t)=K\tilde{\gamma}(it)\in M. Then we are essentially reduced to the toric case, restricting to this 11-parameter subgroup.

Thus the local Kahler geometry in this situation reduces to the study of convex functions on MM which, by definition, are those functions ϕ\phi with ∇2ϕ>0\nabla^{2}\phi>0 at each point. Equivalently, they are functions which are convex along geodesics in MM. Of course this is a generalisation of the case when M=𝐑n=Tcn/TnM={\bf R}^{n}=T^{n}_{c}/T^{n}. We can go on to write out the equations we want to solve explicitly in this framework. The Kahler-Einstein equation, in the Fano case, is

det∇2ϕ=e−ϕ.\det\nabla^{2}\phi=e^{-\phi}.

For the scalar curvature; given a convex function ϕ\phi, we define an operator

Δϕ​(f)=(∇2ϕ)−1.∇2f,\Delta_{\phi}(f)=(\nabla^{2}\phi)^{-1}.\nabla^{2}f,

where (∇2ϕ)−1(\nabla^{2}\phi)^{-1} is the quadratic form on T∗​MT^{*}M induced by the nondegenerate quadratic form ∇2ϕ\nabla^{2}\phi on T​MTM, in the usual way, and the dot denotes the contraction between s2​T​Ms^{2}TM and s2​T∗​Ms^{2}T^{*}M. Then the scalar curvature of the Kahler metric defined by Φ\Phi is

S=Δϕ(logdet∇2ϕ).S=\Delta_{\phi}(\log\det\nabla^{2}\phi).

Notice that these local constructions make sense on any manifold equipped with a connection and volume form.

There are some important differences between this theory in the case of a semi-simple group GG and that in the abelian, toric, case.

  • •

    When we go beyond the local differential geometry we need to consider a class of “admissible” functions ϕ\phi which define metrics which extend smoothly to VV. This imposes some asymptotic growth conditions on ϕ\phi (as in the toric case) but these can be more complicated, since they encode the structure of the compactification.

  • •

    In the toric case the local equations are affine invariant, but there is no substitute for the affine group in the semi-simple case. In the semi-simple case we have a preferred metric which changes the character of the theory.

  • •

    The geometry of MM in the semi-simple case has negative curvature, reflecting the non-abelian nature of GG. This makes a radical difference to arguments involving volumes of balls etc.

Again, there seems to the author to be a lot of scope for development of this theory. For example one could consider a function ww on a Riemannian manifold of negative curvature which satisfies a differential inequality

det∇2w≥e−w,\det\nabla^{2}w\geq e^{-w},

and try to establish analogs of the results proved by Wang and Zhu in the toric case.

[02AK]

5 The Mukai-Umemura manifold and its deformations

The first part of this section gives an account, not aimed at algebraic geometry specialists, of a very interesting family of Fano 33-folds, following Mukai. The basic references are [22], [23], but there are also many other relevant papers in the algebraic geometry literature. Then we go on to discuss the existence of Kahler-Einstein metrics on some manifolds in this family.

[02AL]

5.1 Mukai’s construction

We start with a 77-dimensional complex vector space VV and write G​r3​(V)Gr_{3}(V) for the Grassmann manifold of 3-dimensional subspaces of VV. So G​r3​(V)Gr_{3}(V) has dimension 3.(7−3)=123.(7-3)=12. A form Ω∈Λ2​(V∗)\Omega\in\Lambda^{2}(V^{*}) defines a subset ZΩ⊂G​r3​(V)Z_{\Omega}\subset Gr_{3}(V) consisting of the 33-planes PP such that Ω|P\Omega|_{P} vanishes. In other language we consider the tautological rank 3 vector bundle U→G​r3​(V)U\rightarrow Gr_{3}(V); the form Ω\Omega defines a section sΩs_{\Omega} of Λ2​U∗\Lambda^{2}U^{*} with zero set ZΩZ_{\Omega}. For generic Ω\Omega this zero set is a smooth subvariety of codimension 33. Now let Ω1,Ω2,Ω3\Omega_{1},\Omega_{2},\Omega_{3} be three such forms and consider

X=ZΩ1∩ZΩ2∩ZΩ3⊂G​r3​(V).X=Z_{\Omega_{1}}\cap Z_{\Omega_{2}}\cap Z_{\Omega_{3}}\subset Gr_{3}(V).

Of course this only depends on the 33-plane Π\Pi in Λ2​V∗\Lambda^{2}V^{*} spanned by the Ωi\Omega_{i}, so we may sometimes write XΠX_{\Pi}. Obviously there is a Zariski-open subset 𝒰{\cal U} in the Grassmannian G​r3​(Λ2​V∗)Gr_{3}(\Lambda^{2}V^{*}) of 33-planes Π\Pi such that XΠX_{\Pi} is a smooth subvariety of dimension 12−3.3=312-3.3=3. This set 𝒰{\cal U} is non-empty, as we will see later. The group S​L​(V)SL(V) acts on the whole construction and obviously different subspaces Π\Pi which lie in the same S​L​(V)SL(V) orbit define isomorphic manifolds XΠX_{\Pi}, so we get a set of equivalence classes of manifolds constructed in this way, parametrised by the quotient 𝒰/S​L​(V){\cal U}/SL(V). (Mukai shows further that this parametrisation is effective: i.e. XΠ1X_{\Pi_{1}} is isomorphic to XΠ2X_{\Pi_{2}} if and only if Π1,Π2\Pi_{1},\Pi_{2} lie in the same S​L​(V)SL(V) orbit. Moreover, he shows that all “prime Fano 33-folds of genus 12” arise in this way.)

We compute the canonical bundle KXK_{X} of the variety X=XΠX=X_{\Pi} for some Π∈𝒰\Pi\in{\cal U}. We have

Λ2​U∗=U⊗H\Lambda^{2}U^{*}=U\otimes H

where HH is the ample line bundle Λ3​U∗\Lambda^{3}U^{*}. So, writing det\det for the the top exterior power of a vector bundle, we have

detΛ2​U∗=H⊗2.\det\Lambda^{2}U^{*}=H^{\otimes 2}.

The tangent bundle of the Grassmannian at a 33-plane P⊂VP\subset V can be identified with P∗⊗V/PP^{*}\otimes V/P. So

detT​G​r3=H⊗7.\det TGr_{3}=H^{\otimes 7}.

Now since the tangent bundle of XX is the kernel of a surjective map from T​G​r3​(V)TGr_{3}(V) to Λ2​U∗⊕Λ2​U∗⊕Λ2​U∗\Lambda^{2}U^{*}\oplus\Lambda^{2}U^{*}\oplus\Lambda^{2}U^{*} we have

KX−1=detT​X=H⊗(7−3.2)=H.K_{X}^{-1}=\det TX=H^{\otimes(7-3.2)}=H.

Thus XX is a Fano manifold. The sections of HH over G​r3Gr_{3} give the Plucker embedding

G​r3​(V)→𝐏⁡(Λ3​V)=𝐏34Gr_{3}(V)\rightarrow{\bf P}(\Lambda^{3}V)={\bf P}^{34}

For any 33-form A∈Λ3​V∗A\in\Lambda^{3}V^{*} we get a hyperplane section YA⊂G​r3​(V)Y_{A}\subset Gr_{3}(V) which just consists of the 33-planes PP such A|P=0A|_{P}=0. By definition this occurs if PP is in XX and AA is in the image of the wedge product map Π⊗V∗→Λ3​V∗\Pi\otimes V^{*}\rightarrow\Lambda^{3}V^{*}. We expect this map to have an image of dimension 7.3=217.3=21 in which case the image of the composite

X→G​r3​(V)→𝐏34X\rightarrow Gr_{3}(V)\rightarrow{\bf P}^{34}

lies in a linear subspace 𝐏34−21=𝐏13{\bf P}^{34-21}={\bf P}^{13}. Certainly this map is defined by sections of KX−1K_{X}^{-1}, we will see later that H0​(X,KX−1)H^{0}(X,K_{X}^{-1}) has dimension 1414 and that this embedding is that given by the anticanonical system.

To make this more concrete we show now that XX is a rational variety; that is, we construct an explicit parametrisation of a dense open set in XX. Suppose we have a pair of 33-dimensional subspaces P0,Q0⊂VP_{0},Q_{0}\subset V with P0∩Q0=0P_{0}\cap Q_{0}=0. We ask what 33-planes PP in the 66-dimensional subspace P0⊕Q0P_{0}\oplus Q_{0} lie in XX. In matrix notation, we can write the restriction of a form Ω\Omega to P0⊕Q0P_{0}\oplus Q_{0} as

(σA−ATτ)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}\sigma&A\\ -A^{T}&\tau\end{array}\right)

Now consider the 33-dimensional subspaces PP which arise as the graphs of linear maps M:P0→Q0M:P_{0}\rightarrow Q_{0}. The condition becomes

σ+MT​τ​M+(A​M−(A​M)T)=0.\sigma+M^{T}\tau M+(AM-(AM)^{T})=0. (33)

So our three forms Ωi\Omega_{i} give us three triples Ai,σi,τiA_{i},\sigma_{i},\tau_{i} and we have three equations of the form (33) to solve to find a point of XX. We have 99 unknowns: the entries of the matrix MM. The left hand side of (33) takes values in the 33-dimensional space of skew symmetric 3×33\times 3 matrices so we obtain a total of 3.3=93.3=9 equations in these 99 unknowns and we expect a finite number of solutions. These equations are quadratic and one can solve them explicitly, to see that there are generically two solutions. However it is easier to suppose that we are in the case when P0P_{0} itself lies in XX. This means that all the τi\tau_{i} are zero, so the equations (33) become linear. Generically this system of 99 linear equations in 99 unknowns is nondegerate and there is a unique solution. Now suppose we have found one point P0P_{0} in XX and consider the space of 66-planes in VV which contain P0P_{0}. This is a copy of projective 33-space 𝐏3{\bf P}^{3}. Given a point in 𝐏3{\bf P}^{3}, that is to say a 6 dimensional subspace EE of VV, we choose a complementary subspace to write is as E=P0⊕Q0E=P_{0}\oplus Q_{0}. Then we can proceed as above and, by solving linear equations, find the points of X∩G​r3​(E)X\cap Gr_{3}(E). Generically there is just one, PEP_{E} say, different from the original P0P_{0}. Conversely for any P′∈XP^{\prime}\in X the sum P⊕P′P\oplus P^{\prime} lies in a 66-dimensional subspace. Of course there will be various exceptional cases, but the upshot is that we get a birational map from 𝐏3{\bf P}^{3} to XX which takes a subspace EE containing P0P_{0} to PEP_{E}.

We now consider a special manifold in this family. Take the vector space VV to be the sixth symmetric power s6s^{6} of the fundamental representation of S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C}). Then Λ2​V∗=Λ2​s6\Lambda^{2}V^{*}=\Lambda^{2}s^{6} decomposes into distinct irreducible representations

Λ2​s6=s10⊕s6⊕s2.\Lambda^{2}s^{6}=s^{10}\oplus s^{6}\oplus s^{2}.

The s2s^{2} summand is a 33-plane Π0\Pi_{0} invariant under S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C}), so there is a natural S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C}) action on the corresponding variety, the Mukai-Umemura manifold, X0=XΠ0X_{0}=X_{\Pi_{0}}. We will see below that X0X_{0} admits a Kahler-Einstein metric. The representation s6s^{6} has a standard invariant symmetric form (,)(\ ,\ ) and the inclusion s2→Λ2​s6s^{2}\rightarrow\Lambda^{2}s^{6} is just the map from the Lie algebra of S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C}) given by the action on s6s^{6}. This comes down to saying that a 33-plane PP is in X0X_{0} if and only if

(δ​p,q)=0(\delta p,q)=0 (34)

for all p,q∈Pp,q\in P and δ∈𝔰​𝔩2\delta\in\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}_{2}. Notice that the action of S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C}) on all the spaces involved actually factors through P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}).

Identify the projectivisation of the fundamental representation s1=𝐂2s^{1}={\bf C}^{2} with the standard round sphere and fix an icosahedron, which can be regarded as a set of 12 vertices in in this sphere. Thus we get a symmetry group Γ⊂S​O​(3)⊂P​S​L​(2,𝐂)\Gamma\subset SO(3)\subset PSL(2,{\bf C}) of order 6060. There is a simple way to see that the 77-dimensional representation s6s^{6} of P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}) becomes reducible when restricted to Γ\Gamma. There are 66 pairs of antipodal vertices and for each such pair p,p¯p,\overline{p} we have a 11-dimensional subspace consisting of polynomials which vanish to order 33 at p,p¯p,\overline{p}. The sum of these 66 subspaces is obviously invariant under Γ\Gamma and is a proper subspace of s6s^{6} since it has codimension at least 11. A little calculation shows that this invariant subspace is of dimension 33 and satisfies the criterion (34). So this subspace gives a point P0P_{0} in X0X_{0} fixed by Γ\Gamma. On the other hand the stabiliser of P0P_{0} is obviously not the whole of S​O​(3)SO(3) and, since there is no finite subgroup of S​O​(3)SO(3) strictly larger than Γ\Gamma, the stabiliser must be exactly Γ\Gamma.

Now go back to the wedge product P0∧V∗→Λ3​V∗P_{0}\wedge V^{*}\rightarrow\Lambda^{3}V^{*}. In terms of representations this is an S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C})-map

s2⊗s6→Λ3​s6.s^{2}\otimes s^{6}\rightarrow\Lambda^{3}s^{6}.

It is an exercise in representation theory to show that

Λ3​s6=s12⊕s8⊕s6⊕s4⊕s2⊕s0⊕s0.\Lambda^{3}s^{6}=s^{12}\oplus s^{8}\oplus s^{6}\oplus s^{4}\oplus s^{2}\oplus s^{0}\oplus s^{0}.

So comparing with

s2⊗s6=s8⊕s6⊕s4⊕s2⊕s0s^{2}\otimes s^{6}=s^{8}\oplus s^{6}\oplus s^{4}\oplus s^{2}\oplus s^{0}

we see that the embedding X0⊂G​r3​(V)⊂𝐏⁡(Λ3​V)X_{0}\subset Gr_{3}(V)\subset{\bf P}(\Lambda^{3}V) gives rise to an S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C})-equivariant embedding

X0→𝐏⁡(s0⊕s12).X_{0}\rightarrow{\bf P}(s^{0}\oplus s^{12}). (35)

In other words, by our identification of the anticanonical bundle K−1K^{-1} we have

H0​(X0,K−1)=s0⊕s12,H^{0}(X_{0},K^{-1})=s^{0}\oplus s^{12},

as a representation of S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C}).In particular, there is an S​L​(2,𝐂)SL(2,{\bf C})-invariant section σ\sigma of K−1K^{-1}. Explicitly, if we identify Λ3​s6\Lambda^{3}s^{6} with Λ4​s6\Lambda^{4}s^{6} then σ\sigma corresponds to the 44-form on V=s6V=s^{6} defined as follows. We choose any orthonormal basis Ω1,Ω2,Ω3\Omega_{1},\Omega_{2},\Omega_{3} of P0P_{0} and write down the 44-form

∗σ=Ω12+Ω22+Ω32.*\sigma=\Omega_{1}^{2}+\Omega_{2}^{2}+\Omega_{3}^{2}.

In this way, we get another description of the manifold X0X_{0}. Our point P0∈X0P_{0}\in X_{0} cannot lie in the zero set of σ\sigma (since its orbit is 33-dimensional). So, in the embedding (35), we have

P0=[1,v0]∈𝐏⁡(𝐂⊕s12).P_{0}=[1,v_{0}]\in{\bf P}({\bf C}\oplus s^{12}).

Thus v0v_{0} is an element of s12s^{12} whose stabiliser in P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}) is exactly Γ\Gamma.Now there is an obvious element of the projective space 𝐏⁡(s12){\bf P}(s^{12}) with stabiliser Γ\Gamma, just the configuration of vertices of the icosahedron, regarded as an element of the symmetric product. Since Γ\Gamma is a perfect group it must act trivially on the corresponding line in s12s^{12}, so we get a vector in s12s^{12} with stabiliser Γ\Gamma. It is easy to see that, up to a multiple, this in the only element of s12s^{12} with stabiliser Γ\Gamma, and thus we have identified v0v_{0}. Then we can simply define X0X_{0} to be the closure in 𝐏⁡(𝐂⊕s12){\bf P}({\bf C}\oplus s^{12}) of the P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C})-orbit of v0v_{0} in s12s^{12}. (Here we are regarding the vector space s12s^{12} as being a subset of the projective space 𝐏⁡(𝐂⊕s12){\bf P}({\bf C}\oplus s^{12}) in the familiar way.)

In this description, the intersection of X0X_{0} with the hyperplane at infinity

D=𝐏⁡(s12)⊂𝐏⁡(𝐂⊕s12),D={\bf P}(s^{12})\subset{\bf P}({\bf C}\oplus s^{12}),

is, by definition, the zero set of the invariant section σ\sigma of K−1K^{-1}. Consider a 11-parameter subgroup λt\lambda_{t} in P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}). Thus we have a pair of distinct point z+,z−z_{+},z_{-} such that when tt is large positive the map λt\lambda_{t} contracts most of the sphere to a small neighbourhood of z+z_{+}, and when tt is large negative to a small neighbourhood of z−z_{-}. If y1,…​y12y_{1},\dots y_{12} is any configuration of distinct points it is not hard to see that the limit as t→∞t\rightarrow\infty of

λt​(y¯)=(λt​(y1),λt​(y2​…​λt​(y12))CLOSE\lambda_{t}(\underline{y})=\left(\lambda_{t}(y_{1}),\lambda_{t}(y_{2}\dots\lambda_{t}(y_{12})\right)

in the symmetric product 𝐏⁡(s12){\bf P}(s^{12}) is either 12​z+=(z+,z+,…,z+)12z_{+}=(z_{+},z_{+},\dots,z_{+}) (in the generic case) or 11​z++z−=(z+,…,z+,z−)11z_{+}+z_{-}=(z_{+},\dots,z_{+},z_{-}) (in the case when one of the yiy_{i} is z−z_{-}). Using this, Mukai and Umemura show that the divisor at infinity DD consists precisely of the union of points of the form 12​z+12z_{+} or 11​z++z−11z_{+}+z_{-} in 𝐏⁡(s12){\bf P}(s^{12}). It is easy to identify this geometrically. The points of the form 12​z+12z_{+} make up the rational normal curve in 𝐏⁡(s12){\bf P}(s^{12}). Our divisor DD is the surface swept out by the lines in 𝐏⁡(s12){\bf P}(s^{12}) tangent to the rational normal curve. As a set we can identify DD with 𝐏1×𝐏1{\bf P}^{1}\times{\bf P}^{1}: we just map (z+,z−)∈𝐏1×𝐏1(z_{+},z_{-})\in{\bf P}^{1}\times{\bf P}^{1} to 11​z++z−∈D11z_{+}+z_{-}\in D. But the surface DD is singular and a more precise statement is that the map above is a holomorphic map ν:𝐏1×𝐏1→D\nu:{\bf P}^{1}\times{\bf P}^{1}\rightarrow D which is the normalisation of DD. The singular set of DD is the image of the diagonal in 𝐏1×𝐏1{\bf P}^{1}\times{\bf P}^{1}, and it is easy to check that the singularity has the form of a cusp transverse to the diagonal. That is to say, we can choose local co-ordinates z1​z2,z3z_{1}z_{2},z_{3} in X0X_{0} around a singular point of DD such that DD is defined by the equation z12=z23z_{1}^{2}=z_{2}^{3}.

We now have a rather explicit description of X0X_{0}, as the compactification of P​S​L​(2,𝐂)/ΓPSL(2,{\bf C})/\Gamma formed by adjoining the divisor DD. We can use this to compute the action of P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}) on all of the spaces of sections H0​(X0,K−p)H^{0}(X_{0},K^{-p}). For the pull back ν∗​(K−1)\nu^{*}(K^{-1}) is isomorphic to the line bundle 𝒪⁡(11,1){\cal O}(11,1) over 𝐏1×𝐏1{\bf P}^{1}\times{\bf P}^{1}. We can regard the structure sheaf of DD as a subsheaf of that of 𝐏1×𝐏1{\bf P}^{1}\times{\bf P}^{1}. From the local model of the singularity along the diagonal one sees that the quotient can be identified with sections of 𝒪⁡(2){\cal O}(2) along the diagonal. This means that H0​(D,K−p|D)H^{0}(D,K^{-p}|_{D}) is the kernel of a map H0​(𝐏1×𝐏1,𝒪⁡(11​p,p))→H0​(𝐏1,𝒪⁡(12​p−2))H^{0}({\bf P}^{1}\times{\bf P}^{1};{\cal O}(11p,p))\rightarrow H^{0}({\bf P}^{1};{\cal O}(12p-2)). As representations of P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}) this is a map

s11​p⊗sp→s12​p−2.s^{11p}\otimes s^{p}\rightarrow s^{12p-2}.

Now

s11​p⊗sp=s12​p+s12​p−2​…⊕s10​ps^{11p}\otimes s^{p}=s^{12p}+s^{12p-2}\dots\oplus s^{10p}

and the map above is just the projection to the second factor. So

H0​(D,K−p|D)=s12​p⊕s12​p−4⊕s12​p−6​…⊕s10​p+2⊕s10​p.H^{0}(D;K^{-p}|_{D})=s^{12p}\oplus s^{12p-4}\oplus s^{12p-6}\dots\oplus s^{10p+2}\oplus s^{10p}.

Then the exact cohomology sequence of

0→K−(p−1)→K−p→K−p|D→00\rightarrow K^{-(p-1)}\rightarrow K^{-p}\rightarrow K^{-p}|_{D}\rightarrow 0

together with Kodaira vanishing on X0X_{0} gives

H0​(X0,K−p)=H0​(X0,K−(p−1))⊕s12​p⊕s12​p−4​…​s10​p,H^{0}(X_{0},K^{-p})=H^{0}(X_{0},K^{-(p-1)})\oplus s^{12p}\oplus s^{12p-4}\dots s^{10p},

and inductively we get a description of each H0​(X0,K−p)H^{0}(X_{0},K^{-p}). Thus

H0​(X0,K−1)=s0⊕s12,H^{0}(X_{0},K^{-1})=s^{0}\oplus s^{12},
H0​(X0,K−2)=s0⊕s12⊕s24⊕s20.H^{0}(X_{0},K^{-2})=s^{0}\oplus s^{12}\oplus s^{24}\oplus s^{20}.

For p≥6p\geq 6 we get multiplicities: H0​(X0,K−6)H^{0}(X_{0},K^{-6}) contains two copies of s60s^{60}. This illustrates the difference with the multiplicity-free case discussed above. (Although since the multiplicities are small until pp becomes quite large, once is tempted to think of X0X_{0} as being “close” to multiplicity-free. )

[02AM]

5.2 Topological and symplectic picture

We will now get another explicit picture of X0X_{0}, taking the point of view of symplectic geometry. Recall that all Kahler metrics in the cohomology class c1​(X0)c_{1}(X_{0}) define equivalent symplectic structures, so we have a well-defined symplectic manifold (X0,ω)(X_{0},\omega) with an S​O​(3)SO(3)-action. Thus we have an equivariant moment map

μ:X0→𝐑3=Lie​(S​O​(3))∗.\mu:X_{0}\rightarrow{\bf R}^{3}={\rm Lie}(SO(3))^{*}.

whose image is clearly a ball in 𝐑3{\bf R}^{3}. We can understand the structure of this moment map by restricting to a subgroup S1⊂S​O​(3)S^{1}\subset SO(3), say that corresponding to the x1x_{1}-axis in 𝐑3{\bf R}^{3}. Then the Hamiltonian HH for this circle action on X0X_{0} is the composite of μ\mu with projection to the x1x_{1}-axis. The critical points of HH are the fixed points of the circle action and we can find these explicitly. We can suppose that our circle subgroups corresponds to the standard action of

(λ1/200λ−1/2),\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}\lambda^{1/2}&0\\ 0&\lambda^{-1/2}\end{array}\right),

acting on 𝐂7{\bf C}^{7} with weights λ3,…​λ−3\lambda^{3},\dots\lambda^{-3}. We write eie_{i} for the basis vector belonging to the weight λi\lambda^{i}. This induces an action on the Grassmannian G​r3​(V)Gr_{3}(V) whose fixed points are just invariant 33-dimensional subspaces of 𝐂7{\bf C}^{7} and these are just the spans Pi​j​k=⟨ei,ej,ek⟩P_{ijk}=\langle e_{i},e_{j},e_{k}\rangle for distinct i,j,ki,j,k. By checking the 35 different cases, or otherwise, one finds that the only Pi​j​kP_{ijk} which satisfy the criterion (34) to lie in X0X_{0} are P123,P023,P0−2−3,P−1−2−3P_{123},P_{023},P_{0-2-3},P_{-1-2-3}. There is an action of the Weyl group {±1}\{\pm 1\} on the whole situation which commutes, up to sign, with the circle action, takes HH to −H-H and takes Pi​j​kP_{ijk} to P−i−j−kP_{-i-j-k}. So there are four fixed points of the circle action but to analyse the local structure around them it suffices to consider the two cases P123,P023P_{123},P_{023}. Notice that, by considering HH as a Morse function we immediately see that X0X_{0} has the same additive homology as 𝐂𝐏3{\bf C}{\bf P}^{3}. Notice also that the value of HH at a critical point is just given by the weight of the action on the fibre of K−1K^{-1} over this point, which is just i+j+ki+j+k at Pi​j​kP_{ijk}.

We next compute the weights of the circle action on the tangent spaces at the fixed points. This is similar to the calculation of the canonical bundle. At a fixed point the tangent space T​X0TX_{0}, viewed as a representation of S1S^{1}, can be written as the formal difference

T​G​r3​(V)−(Λ2​U∗⊗Lie⁡(S​O​(3))).TGr_{3}(V)-\left(\Lambda^{2}U^{*}\otimes{\rm Lie}(SO(3))\right).

Computing the weights of these two terms and subtracting we find that the weights of the action on the tangent space at P123P_{123} are (1,2,3)(1,2,3) and on the tangent space at P023P_{023} are (1,−1,5)(1,-1,5). In either case the orbit of the fixed point is a copy of S​O​(3)/S1=S2SO(3)/S^{1}=S^{2} in X0X_{0} and the weight 11 in the action on T​X0TX_{0} just corresponds to the tangent space of this orbit. The weights normal to the orbit are (2,3)(2,3) in the case of P123P_{123} and (−1,5)(-1,5) in the case of P023P_{023}.

With these calculations we can get a good picture of the map μ\mu. Write Σ,Σ′\Sigma,\Sigma^{\prime} for the orbits of P123P_{123} and P023P_{023} respectively. Then μ\mu restricts to an S​O​(3)SO(3)-equivariant equivalence between Σ\Sigma and the sphere of radius 1+2+3=61+2+3=6 in 𝐑3{\bf R}^{3} and between Σ′\Sigma^{\prime} and the sphere of radius 0+2+3=50+2+3=5. The image of μ\mu is the ball of radius 66 and the critical values of μ\mu are precisely these two spheres. So μ\mu is a fibration away from these spheres. For x¯∈𝐑3\underline{x}\in{\bf R}^{3}, write Fx¯F_{\underline{x}} for the preimage μ−1​(x¯)\mu^{-1}(\underline{x}). If |x¯|≠5,6|\underline{x}|\neq 5,6 the fibre Fx¯F_{\underline{x}} is a 33-manifold. If also |x¯|>0|\underline{x}|>0 then this 33-manifold has a natural circle action defined by the circle subgroup of S​O​(3)SO(3) fixing x¯\underline{x}. When x¯=0\underline{x}=0 the fibre has an S​O​(3)SO(3) action. As x¯\underline{x} varies in 𝐑3{\bf R}^{3} the fibre only “changes”—in the obvious sense—when |x¯||\underline{x}| crosses the special values 5,65,6. Thus we understand the full topological picture if we understand the changes in the fibre as x¯\underline{x} moves along the positive x1x_{1}-axis, say. Let V⊂X0V\subset X_{0} be the pre-image by μ\mu of the positive x1x_{1}-axis. This is a smooth 44-manifold, with a circle action, and the fibres Fx¯F_{\underline{x}}, for x¯\underline{x} on the axis, are the level sets of the Hamiltonian HH, restricted to VV. Then we have the usual Morse-theory description of these changes, from the Hessian of HH on VV, which is determined by the weights of the circle action. As x¯\underline{x} moves across the point (6,0,0)(6,0,0) the situation is modelled by the level sets

2​|z1|2+3​|z3|2=ϵ,2|z_{1}|^{2}+3|z_{3}|^{2}=\epsilon,

for (z1,z2)∈𝐂2(z_{1},z_{2})\in{\bf C}^{2}, with the circle action of weight (2,3)(2,3). Thus the fibre changes from the empty set to a 33-sphere with an action given by these weights. As x¯\underline{x} moves across the point (5,0,0)(5,0,0) the situation is modelled, locally, by the level sets

−|z1|2+5​|z2|2=ϵ,-|z_{1}|^{2}+5|z_{2}|^{2}=\epsilon,

with the circle action of weight (−1,5)(-1,5). The effect on the fibres is to perform a “Dehn surgery” on an S1S^{1}-orbit. Thus the fibres Fx¯F_{\underline{x}} for |x¯|<5|\underline{x}|<5 are obtained by performing this surgery on a knot Γ⊂S3\Gamma\subset S^{3}. Now Γ\Gamma is a free orbit of the (2,3)(2,3) action so it is the (2,3)(2,3) “torus knot” which is just a trefoil. To nail down the Dehn surgery completely we need to specify a framing of the knot but this is determined by the fact that the linking number of a nearby orbit with Γ\Gamma is the weight 55, from which one concludes that the framing is +1+1. This is a well-known description of the Poincaré homology sphere (the result of +1+1-surgery on a trefoil), and ties in with our previous discussion since the fibre F0F_{0} is the S​O​(3)SO(3)-orbit S​O​(3)/ΓSO(3)/\Gamma. (Another way of expressing this is that the fibres Fx¯F_{\underline{x}} are Seifert-fibred 33-manifolds: for 5<|x¯|<65<|\underline{x}|<6 we have two multiple fibres with multiplicity (2,3)(2,3) and the surgery across |x¯|=5|\underline{x}|=5 introduces another multiple fibre with multiplicity 55, so for |x¯|<5|\underline{x}|<5 we get the Seifert manifold with multiplicities (2,3,5)(2,3,5), which is another well-known description of the Poincaré manifold.)

It is interesting to match this picture up with the algebro-geometric description. This illustrates the general theory of Kirwan [19]. The 22-sphere Σ\Sigma at which |μ||\mu| attains its maximal value 66 is a holomorphic sphere in X0X_{0}: it is just the rational normal curve in our divisor D⊂𝐏⁡(s12)D\subset{\bf P}(s^{12}). The other sphere Σ′\Sigma^{\prime} is not holomorphic. It is a critical manifold for the function |μ|2|\mu|^{2} on X0X_{0} and the divisor DD appears as the associated “ascending set”: the closure of the set of points which flow to Σ′\Sigma^{\prime} under the decreasing gradient flow of |μ|2|\mu|^{2}. In our description of DD as S2×S2S^{2}\times S^{2} the holomorphic curve Σ\Sigma is the diagonal and Σ′\Sigma^{\prime} is the “anti-diagonal”consisting of pairs of antipodal points. One can also see the cusp singularity in DD, transverse to Σ\Sigma, from the weights (2,3)(2,3) of the circle action on the normal bundle.

Notice that if we write 𝐂𝐏3=𝐏⁡(s3){\bf C}{\bf P}^{3}={\bf P}(s^{3}), for the 44-dimensional representation s3s^{3} of S​U​(2)SU(2), the moment map μ:𝐂𝐏3→𝐑3\mu:{\bf C}{\bf P}^{3}\rightarrow{\bf R}^{3} for the action gives a description of 𝐂𝐏3{\bf C}{\bf P}^{3} very similar to that above. In this case μ−1​(0)\mu^{-1}(0) is S​O​(3)/HSO(3)/H where H⊂S​O​(3)H\subset SO(3) is the group of symmetries of an equilateral triangle, and we see this 33-manifold described as the Seifert fibration with multiple fibres (2,2,3)(2,2,3).

[02AN]

5.3 Deformations

Here we study the deformations of Mukai’s construction about the special solution X0X_{0}. Recall that a manifold in this family is specified by a 33-plane in Λ2​𝐂7\Lambda^{2}{\bf C}^{7}. We start with the 33-plane s2⊂Λ2​s6=s10⊕s6⊕s2s^{2}\subset\Lambda^{2}s^{6}=s^{10}\oplus s^{6}\oplus s^{2}. The tangent space of the Grassmannian at this point is given by the linear maps from s2s^{2} to the complementary subspace s10⊕s6s^{10}\oplus s^{6}, that is (using the fact that all these representations are isomorphic to their duals)

T​G​r3​(Λ2​𝐂7)=(s10⊕s6)⊗s2=s12⊕2​s8⊕s6⊕s4.TGr_{3}(\Lambda^{2}{\bf C}^{7})=(s^{10}\oplus s^{6})\otimes s^{2}=s^{12}\oplus 2s^{8}\oplus s^{6}\oplus s^{4}.

The action of the group S​L​(𝐂7)=S​L​(s6)SL({\bf C}^{7})=SL(s^{6}) gives a linear map

𝔰​𝔩​(7)→T​G​r3​(Λ2​𝐂7),\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}(7)\rightarrow TGr_{3}(\Lambda^{2}{\bf C}^{7}),

which we know has kernel the Lie algebra 𝔰​𝔩​(2)\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}(2) of the stabiliser. Now the Lie algebra of G​L​(𝐂7)=G​L​(s6)GL({\bf C}^{7})=GL(s^{6}) is

s6⊗s6=s12⊕s10⊕s8⊕s6⊕s4⊕s2⊕s0s^{6}\otimes s^{6}=s^{12}\oplus s^{10}\oplus s^{8}\oplus s^{6}\oplus s^{4}\oplus s^{2}\oplus s^{0}

so the Lie algebra of S​L​(s6)SL(s^{6}) is s12⊕…​s2s^{12}\oplus\dots s^{2}. It is clear then that the quotient of the tangent space by the tangent space to the orbit is just s8s^{8}, as a representation of P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}). By general theory there is an equivariant slice: a P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}) equivariant embedding jj from a neighbourhood of 00 in s8s^{8} into G​r3​(Λ2)Gr_{3}(\Lambda^{2}), mapping 00 to our fixed subspace s2s^{2}, such that two points j⁡(p),j⁡(q)j(p),j(q) in the same S​L​(7)SL(7) orbit if and only p,qp,q are in the same P​S​L​(2)PSL(2) orbit. In fact, although we do not really need this, what we are describing is the versal deformation of X0X_{0}, so H1​(T​X0)=s8H^{1}(TX_{0})=s^{8}, as a representation of P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}).

One can gain a lot of insight from this simple calculation. The structure of the orbits of P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}) on s8s^{8} (or any sps^{p}) is a standard example in Geometric Invariant Theory. There are five cases

  1. 1.

    The trivial orbit {0}\{0\}.

  2. 2.

    The orbits of polynomials having no zero of multiplicity ≥4\geq 4. These are closed in s8s^{8}.

  3. 3.

    The orbit of polynomials having two distinct zeros, each of multiplicity four. This orbit is closed and each point in it has stabiliser 𝐂∗⊂P​S​L​(2,𝐂){\bf C}^{*}\subset PSL(2,{\bf C}).

  4. 4.

    The orbits of polynomials having a zero of multiplicity four and other zeros each of multiplicity less than four. These orbits are not closed but there closure contains the orbit of type (3).

  5. 5.

    The orbits of polynomials having a zero of multiplicity ≥5\geq 5. these are not closed and contain 00 in their closure.

This is the source of the famous example of Tian of Fano manifolds without Kahler-Einstein (or Ricci soliton) metrics [31]. Tian shows that the manifolds corresponding to any P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}) orbit of type (5) cannot have such metrics. Tian’s general results also show the same for the manifolds corresponding to orbits of type (4). Tian’s results are of course deep and difficult but we note now that a weaker statement is rather obviously true. For this we need to recall some background.

In general, the linearisation of the Kahler-Einstein equations on a complex manifold ZZ at a solution ω0\omega_{0} is given by the self-adjoint operator Δ+1\Delta+1 and, much as we have seen in Section 3, the kernel of this can be identified with the Lie algebra of the isometry group GG of ω0\omega_{0}. Suppose we have a GG-equivariant deformation of Z0Z_{0}: i.e. a complex manifold 𝒵{\cal Z} with a GG-action, an action of GG on a ball B⊂𝐂mB\subset{\bf C}^{m} and a GG-equivariant submersion π:𝒵→B\pi:{\cal Z}\rightarrow B. In this situation we automatically get “local actions” of the complexified group GcG^{c} on 𝒵{\cal Z} and BB, compatible with π\pi. The standard “Kuranishi method”, which depends only on the formal properties of the situation, yields the following structure (after possibly restricting to a smaller ball BB).

  • •

    A GG-invariant family of Kahler metrics ωt\omega_{t} on the fibres Zt=π−1​(t)Z_{t}=\pi^{-1}(t) such that ωt\omega_{t} is isometric to ωt′\omega_{t^{\prime}} if and only if tt and t′t^{\prime} are in the same GG-orbit.

  • •

    A smooth map ν:B→𝔤∗\nu:B\rightarrow\mathfrak{g}^{*}, equivariant for the action of GG on BB and the co-adjoint action on 𝔤∗\mathfrak{g}^{*}, such that ωt\omega_{t} is Kahler-Einstein if and only if ν⁡(t)=0\nu(t)=0.

Now in this general situation we can see that, if the GG-action on BB is non-trivial the map ν\nu cannot be identically zero. For if t,t′t,t^{\prime} are in the same orbit of the local GcG^{c} action on BB then ZtZ_{t} and Zt′Z_{t^{\prime}} are isomorphic complex manifolds. But if ν⁡(t)\nu(t) and ν⁡(t′)\nu(t^{\prime}) both vanish then ωt\omega_{t} and ωt′\omega_{t^{\prime}} are Kahler-Einstein and, by the uniqueness of the Kahler-Einstein solution, they must be isometric and this only happens if t,t′t,t^{\prime} are in the same GG-orbit. Thus what we see from this elementary argument is that as we deform Z0Z_{0} in the smooth family ZtZ_{t} we cannot deform the metric ω0\omega_{0} in a smooth family of Kahler-Einstein metrics, for all small tt. Tian’s much stronger result is that if the Futaki invariant of Z0Z_{0} vanishes (say), and if 00 lies in the closure of the the GcG^{c}-orbit of a point t∈Bt\in B then ZtZ_{t} does not admit any Kahler-Einstein metric at all. This is an example of the “jumping of structures” phenomenon discussed in Section 1: there are arbitrarily small deformations of Z0Z_{0} which are equivalent to a different structure ZtZ_{t}.

Returning to our special case of the Mukai-Umemura manifold, we can see conversely that there are some deformations of X0X_{0} which do admit Kahler-Einstein metrics. The general theory of these “obstruction maps” ν\nu is being developed by T. Brönnle, in his Ph.D thesis, but in this special case we can make some simple deductions from symmetry arguments. Let pp be a point in s8s^{8} which is fixed by a subgroup J⊂S​O​(3)J\subset SO(3). Then JJ acts on 𝐑3=𝔰​𝔲​(2){\bf R}^{3}=\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{u}(2) and if ν\nu is any equivariant map from s8s^{8} to 𝐑3{\bf R}^{3} then JJ must fix ν⁡(p)\nu(p). So if the origin is the only point in 𝐑3{\bf R}^{3} fixed by JJ then we must have ν⁡(p)=0\nu(p)=0. Consider, for example,

p=C⁡(z4−α​w4)​(w4−α​z4),p=C(z^{4}-\alpha w^{4})(w^{4}-\alpha z^{4}),

with any α,C∈𝐂\alpha,C\in{\bf C}. This is fixed by a dihedral group JJ of order 88 which has the desired property, so we see that the deformations corresponding such elements of s8s^{8} admit Kahler-Einstein metrics, for small CC. For α,C≠0\alpha,C\neq 0 the element pp has a discrete stabiliser in S​O​(3)SO(3) and it follows that the corresponding metrics have discrete isometry groups. But then the deformation theory implies that all small deformations of these manifolds admit Kahler-Einstein metrics. So we conclude that there is a non-empty open set in 𝒰{\cal U} where the manifolds admit Kahler-Einstein metrics.

Taking α=0\alpha=0 above we get a special family of deformations, admitting Kahler-Einstein metrics, where we can take J=O⁡(2)⊂S​O​(3)J=O(2)\subset SO(3). It follows that the corresponding manifolds have a 𝐂∗{\bf C}^{*}-action. We can see this family of manifolds explicitly as follows. Fix the action on 𝐂7{\bf C}^{7} with weights λ3,…,λ−3\lambda^{3},\dots,\lambda^{-3} as usual. Then we want to look at 33-dimensional subspaces Π\Pi of Λ2​𝐂7\Lambda^{2}{\bf C}^{7} preserved by the action and we just consider those on which the action has weights 1,0−11,0-1. Now the weight 11-subspace of λ2\lambda^{2} has a basis e3∧e−2,e2∧e−1,e1∧e0e_{3}\wedge e_{-2},e_{2}\wedge e_{-1},e_{1}\wedge e_{0} and our space Π\Pi must contain a vector

u=u3,−2​e3∧e−2+u2,−1​e2∧e−1+u1,0​e1∧e0,u=u_{3,-2}e_{3}\wedge e_{-2}+u_{2,-1}e_{2}\wedge e_{-1}+u_{1,0}e_{1}\wedge e_{0},

for scalars u3,−2u_{3,-2} etc. Similarly Π\Pi must contain a vector

v=v1,−1​e1∧e−1+v2,−2​e2∧e−2+v3,−3​e3∧e−3v=v_{1,-1}e_{1}\wedge e_{-1}+v_{2,-2}e_{2}\wedge e_{-2}+v_{3,-3}e_{3}\wedge e_{-3}

and a vector

w=w−3,2​e−3∧e2+w−2,1​e−2∧e1+w−1,0​e−1∧e0.w=w_{-3,2}e_{-3}\wedge e_{2}+w_{-2,1}e_{-2}\wedge e_{1}+w_{-1,0}e_{-1}\wedge e_{0}.

The vector space Π\Pi is determined by these three vectors u,v,wu,v,w. The coefficients are not unique. We could change u,v,wu,v,w to μ1​u,μ2​v,μ3​w\mu_{1}u,\mu_{2}v,\mu_{3}w. Also we could change our basis vectors eie_{i} to λi​ei\lambda_{i}e_{i} to give an equivalent 33-plane. This would change the coefficients, for example u3,−2u_{3,-2} would change to λ3​λ−2​u3,−2\lambda_{3}\lambda_{-2}u_{3,-2}. However the expression

τ=u3,−2​w−3,2​v1,−1u2,−1​w−2,1​v3,−3\tau=\frac{u_{3,-2}w_{-3,2}v_{1,-1}}{u_{2,-1}w_{-2,1}v_{3,-3}}

is invariant under all these changes and gives a “modulus” for this family. The Mukai-Umemura manifold has τ=1\tau=1. When τ\tau is close to 11 we have seen that the corresponding manifold admits a Kahler-Einstein metric. It seems likely that this true for all τ\tau but, as far the author is aware, this is not known. It seems an interesting test case for future developments in the existence theory.

[02AP]

5.4 The α\alpha-invariant

In this subsection we establish the fact used above, that the Mukai-Umemura manifold has a Kahler-Einstein metric11 1 This material appeared in the preprint A note on the α\alpha-invariant of the Mukai-Umemura 3-fold arxiv DG 07114357., which is . For this we appeal to the theory of the α\alpha-invariant, developed by Tian [30]. We begin by recalling the definition. Let ZZ be a Fano manifold on which a compact group GG acts by holomorphic automorphisms and fix a GG-invariant Kahler metric ω0\omega_{0} in the cohomology class −c1​(KZ)-c_{1}(K_{Z}). Let 𝒫{\cal P} be the set of GG-invariant Kahler potentials ψ\psi on XX such that ωψ=ω0+i​∂∂¯​ψ>0\omega_{\psi}=\omega_{0}+i\partial\overline{\partial}\psi>0 and maxZ⁡ψ=0\max_{Z}\psi=0. Thus 𝒫{\cal P} can be identified with the set of all GG-invariant Kahler metrics in the given Kahler class. Let A⊂𝐑A\subset{\bf R} be the set defined by the condition that β∈A\beta\in A if there exists a Cβ∈𝐑C_{\beta}\in{\bf R} such that

∫Ze−β​ψ​d​μ0≤Cβ,\int_{Z}e^{-\beta\psi}d\mu_{0}\leq C_{\beta},

for all ψ∈𝒫\psi\in{\cal P}. Here d​μ0d\mu_{0} is the volume form defined by the fixed metric ω0\omega_{0}. Then Tian sets

αG​(Z)=sup{β:β∈A},\alpha_{G}(Z)=\sup\{\beta:\beta\in A\},

and shows that this does not depend on the choice of ω0\omega_{0}. He shows that αG​(Z)\alpha_{G}(Z) is always strictly positive and that if αG​(Z)>nn+1\alpha_{G}(Z)>\frac{n}{n+1} then ZZ has a Kahler-Einstein metric. What we really show in this subsection is that if we take the Mukai-Umemura manifold XX with the action of S​O​(3)SO(3) then,

[02AQ]
Theorem 3

The α\alpha-invariant αS​O​(3)​(X0)\alpha_{SO(3)}(X_{0}) is 5/65/6.

So, since 5/6>3/45/6>3/4, Tian’s theory proves the existence of a Kahler-Einstein metric. We should say straightaway that this is not really a new result. Alessio Corti has explained to the author that, given the facts above, it can be obtained from the more general theories of [13]. But our argument is extremely simple and fits well into the general framework of this article.

We will only write down the proof that α≥5/6\alpha\geq 5/6, which is what is relevant to Corollary 1. The proof that α=5/6\alpha=5/6 is an easy extension of this.

[02AR]
Lemma 2

There is an M∈𝐑M\in{\bf R} such that

∫Zψ​d​μ0≥−M\int_{Z}\psi\ d\mu_{0}\geq-M

for all ψ∈𝒫\psi\in{\cal P}.

This is a step in Tian’s proof that α>0\alpha>0 and we repeat his argument. If ψ∈𝒫\psi\in{\cal P} we have

Δ0​ψ=2​Λ​(i​∂∂¯​ψ)≥−2​n.\Delta_{0}\psi=2\Lambda(i\partial\overline{\partial}\psi)\geq-2n.

Let KK be the Green’s function for Δ0\Delta_{0}, so that for all functions ff on ZZ

f(x)=−∫ZK(x,y)(Δ0f)(y)dμ0(y)+1V∫f(y)dμ0(y),f(x)=-\int_{Z}K(x,y)(\Delta_{0}f)(y)d\mu_{0}(y)+\frac{1}{V}\int f(y)d\mu_{0}(y),

where VV is the volume of the manifold. With our sign conventions, KK is bounded below and, since we can change KK by the addition of a constant without affecting the identity, we may suppose that K≥0K\geq 0. While KK is singular along the diagonal it is integrable in each variable. Let xx be the point where ψ\psi vanishes. Then applying the Green’s identity to ψ\psi we have

∫Zψ(y)dμ0(y)=V∫ZK(x,y)Δ0ψdμ0(y)≥−2nV∫ZK(x,y)dμ0(y).\int_{Z}\psi(y)d\mu_{0}(y)=V\int_{Z}K(x,y)\Delta_{0}\psi d\mu_{0}(y)\geq-2nV\int_{Z}K(x,y)d\mu_{0}(y).

So we can take

M=2​n​V​max⁡∫Zx⁡K⁡(x,y)​d​μ0​(y).M=2nV\max_{x}\int_{Z}K(x,y)d\mu_{0}(y).

For the rest of this section we work with the Mukai-Umemura manifold, which we denote by XX. Let σ\sigma be the S​O​(3)SO(3)-invariant section of the anticanonical bundle K−1K^{-1} cutting out the divisor DD. There is a Hermitian metric on this line bundle such that the curvature of the associated unitary connection is −i​ω0-i\omega_{0}. Set

f0=−log⁡(|σ|2).f_{0}=-\log\left(|\sigma|^{2}\right).

This is a smooth function on X∖DX\setminus D and i​∂∂¯​f0=ω0i\partial\overline{\partial}f_{0}=\omega_{0}.

[02AS]
Lemma 3

For any β<56\beta<\frac{5}{6} the function exp⁡(β​f0)\exp(\beta f_{0}) is integrable.

This is also standard. The integral in question is

∫Z|σ|−2​β​d​μ0.\int_{Z}|\sigma|^{-2\beta}d\mu_{0}.

By what we know about the singlarities of DD, we can reduce to considering the integrals

∫B|z2−w3|−2​β,\int_{B}|z^{2}-w^{3}|^{-2\beta},

where BB is the unit ball in 𝐂2{\bf C}^{2} and z,wz,w are complex co-ordinates. Let TT be the linear map T⁡(z,w)=(z/8,w/4)T(z,w)=(z/8,w/4) and for r≥1r\geq 1 set

Ωr=Tr​(B)∖Tr−1​(B).\Omega_{r}=T^{r}(B)\setminus T^{r-1}(B).

Set

Ir=∫Ωr|z2−w3|−2​β.I_{r}=\int_{\Omega_{r}}|z^{2}-w^{3}|^{-2\beta}.

The substitution (z′,w′)=T⁡(z,w)(z^{\prime},w^{\prime})=T(z,w) shows that

Ir+1=2(12​β−10)​Ir.I_{r+1}=2^{(12\beta-10)}I_{r}.

Thus ∑rIr\sum_{r}I_{r} is finite if β<5/6\beta<5/6 and the union of the Ωr\Omega_{r} cover B4∖{0}B^{4}\setminus\{0\}.

Now we give the main proof. Let x0∈Xx_{0}\in X be the point with stabiliser Γ\Gamma. We identify S​O​(3)SO(3)-invariant functions on X∖DX\setminus D with Γ\Gamma-invariant functions on M=P​S​L​(2,𝐂)/S​O​(3)M=PSL(2,{\bf C})/SO(3) as in (4.2). The function f0f_{0} on x∖Dx\setminus D corresponds to a convex function ϕ0\phi_{0} on M=P​S​L​(2,𝐂)/S​O​(3)M=PSL(2,{\bf C})/SO(3) which is an “admissible potential” in the language of (4.2). For any other admissible potential ϕ\phi the difference ϕ−ϕ0\phi-\phi_{0} corresponds to ψ\psi, restricted to X∖DX\setminus D. The normalisation that max⁡ψ=0\max\psi=0 becomes the condition that sup​ϕ−ϕ0=0{\rm sup}\ \phi-\phi_{0}=0, and in particular ϕ≤ϕ0\phi\leq\phi_{0}.

Let P0∈MP_{0}\in M be the identity coset. It is the unique point fixed by the action of Γ\Gamma. Any admissible potential function ϕ\phi on MM is proper and bounded below so achieves a minimum in MM. By the convexity and Γ\Gamma-invariance this minimum must occur at P0P_{0}. Set ϕ⁡(P0)=−b\phi(P_{0})=-b. Then the inequality ϕ0≥−b\phi_{0}\geq-b translates back into the statement that ψ≥f0−b\psi\geq f_{0}-b. So

∫Ze−β​ψ​d​μ0≤eb​β​∫Zf0−β​d​μ0.\int_{Z}e^{-\beta\psi}d\mu_{0}\leq e^{b\beta}\int_{Z}f_{0}^{-\beta}d\mu_{0}.

By Lemma 1, it suffices to obtain an upper bound on bb. Let BB be the geodesic ball in MM centred on P0P_{0}, of radius 11 say, and let a¯\overline{a} be the maximum value of ϕ0\phi_{0} on BB, so for any ϕ\phi we have ϕ≤a¯\phi\leq\overline{a} on BB. Convexity along geodesics emanating from P0P_{0} implies that

ϕ⁡(Q)≤−b+(a¯+b)​dist​(Q,P0),\phi(Q)\leq-b+(\overline{a}+b)\ {\rm dist}(Q,P_{0}),

for any point QQ in BB. In particular, on the ball 12​B\frac{1}{2}B of radius 1/21/2 about P0P_{0} we have ϕ≤(a¯−b)/2\phi\leq(\overline{a}-b)/2.

Take the inverse image in P​S​L​(2,𝐂)PSL(2,{\bf C}) of the ball 12​B\frac{1}{2}B and map this to XX by g→g⁡(x0)g\rightarrow g(x_{0}). The image obviously contains a neighbourhood NN of x0x_{0} and on NN we have ψ≤a¯−b2+f0\psi\leq\frac{\overline{a}-b}{2}+f_{0}. Then Lemma 1 implies that bb cannot be very large. In fact, if the minimum of f0f_{0} on NN is a¯\underline{a}, we have ψ≤(a¯2−a¯)−b2\psi\leq(\frac{\overline{a}}{2}-\underline{a})-\frac{b}{2} on NN, so

−M≤∫Nψ​d​μ0≤((a¯2−a¯)−b2)​Vol​(N),-M\leq\int_{N}\psi\ d\mu_{0}\leq((\frac{\overline{a}}{2}-\underline{a})-\frac{b}{2}){\rm Vol}(N),

hence

b≤(a¯−2​a¯)+2​MVol⁡(N)b\leq(\overline{a}-2\underline{a})+\frac{2M}{{\rm Vol}(N)}

where MM is as in Lemma 1. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.

Notice that the same argument can be applied in the toric case, when the polytope PP has a group Γ\Gamma of symmetries, as discussed in (4.2). We should suppose that Γ\Gamma has a unique fixed point in PP: then the proof proceeds exactly as before. The analogue of Lemma 1 holds with β<1\beta<1 since the local models for the zeros of ss are fp​(z1,…,zn)=0f_{p}(z_{1},\dots,z_{n})=0 where fp​(z1,…,zn)=z1​…​zpf_{p}(z_{1},\dots,z_{n})=z_{1}\dots z_{p} and |fp|−2​β|f_{p}|^{-2\beta} is locally integrable for β<1\beta<1. the conclusion is that the α\alpha-invariant in this case is 11. which is a theorem of Batyrev and Selinova [4]. Song gave another proof in [26], and showed conversely that for polytopes which do not have such a symmetry group the α\alpha-invariant never exceeds n/n+1n/n+1. The fact that such toric manifolds nevertheless have Kahler-Einstein metrics illustrates the point that Tian’s α\alpha-invariant criterion is sufficient but not necessary.

References

  • [1] Abreu, M. Kahler geometry of toric varieties and extremal metrics Int. Jour. Math. 9 1198 641-651
  • [2] Alexeev, V. and Katzarkov,L. On K-stability of reductive varieties Geometric and Functional Analysis 15 2005 (297-310)
  • [3] M.F. Atiyah and R. BottThe Yang-Mills equations over Riemann surfaces Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 308 (1982) 523-615
  • [4] Batyrev, V. and Selivanova, E. Einstein-Kahler metrics on symmetric toric Fano manifolds J. reine angew. Math. 512 (1999) 225-236
  • [5] Bielawski, R. Kahler metrics on G𝐂G^{{\bf C}} Jour. Reine Angew. Math. 559 2003(123-136)
  • [6] E. Calabi Extremal Kahler metrics In:Seminar in Differential geometry (ed. Yau) Princeton U.P. (1983)
  • [7] S. K. Donaldson Infinite determinants, stable bundles and curvature Duke Math. Jour. 54 (1987) 231-47
  • [8] Donaldson, S. K. Remarks on gauge theory, complex geometry and four-manifold topology Fields Medallists’ Lectures (Atiyah, Iagolnitzer eds.) World Scientific 1997 (384-403)
  • [9] Donaldson, S. K. Scalar curvature and stability of toric varieties Jour. Differential Geometry 62 (2002) 289-349
  • [10] Donaldson, S. K. Extremal metrics on toric surfaces: a continuity method To appear in Jour. Diff. Geom.
  • [11] Donaldson,S.K. Constant scalar curvature metrics on toric surfaces In preparation.
  • [12] Donaldson, S. and Kronheimer, P. The geometry of four-manifolds Oxford U.P. 1990
  • [13] Demailly, J-P., and Kollar, J. Semi-continuity of complex singularity exponents and Kahler-Einstein metrics on Fano orbifolds Ann. Sci. Ecole Normale Superiore 34 (2001) 525-556
  • [14] Griffiths, P. and Harris, J. Principles of Algebriac Geometry Wiley 1978
  • [15] Guillemin, V. Kahler structures on toric varieties Jour. Differential Geom. 40 (1994) 285-309
  • [16] Guillemin,V. Moment maps and combinatorial invariants of Hamiltonian TnT^{n}-spaces Birkhauser 1994
  • [17] Gutiérrez, C. E. The Monge-Ampère equation Birkhauser 2001
  • [18] Hwang, A. and Singer, M. A momentum construction for circle-invriant Kahler metrics Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 2002 (2285-2325)
  • [19] Kirwan, F.C. Cohomology of quotients in symplectic and algebraic geometry Princeton U.P. 1984
  • [20] Losev, I.V. Proof of the Knop conjecture Arxiv SG/0612561
  • [21] McDuff, D and Salamon, D Introduction to symplectic topology Oxford U.P. 1995
  • [22] Mukai, S. Fano 3-folds in “Complex projective geometry” 255-263 London math. Soc. Lecture Notes 179 Cambridge UP (1992)
  • [23] Mukai, S. and Umemura, H. Minimal rational threefolds In: Algebraic Geometry (Tokyo/Kyoto 1982) 490-518 Lecture Notes in Math. 1016 Springer 1983
  • [24] Phong, D.H. and Sturm, J. Lectures on stability and constant scalar curvature Kahler metrics Arxiv DG/08014179
  • [25] Podesta and Spiro, Kahler-Ricci solitons on homogeneous toric bundles I, II Arxiv DG/0604070/0604071
  • [26] Song, J. The α\alpha-invariant on toric Fano manifolds Amer. Jour. Math. 127 (2005) No. 6 1247-1259
  • [27] Raza, A.A. Scalar curvature and multiplicity-free actions Ph. D. Thesis, Imperial College London (2005)
  • [28] Szekelyhidi, G. The Calabi functional on a ruled surface Arxiv DG/0703562
  • [29] Tian, G. On a set of polarised Kahler metrics on algebraic manifolds J. Differential Geometry 32 (1990) 99-130
  • [30] Tian, G. On Kahler-Einstein metrics on certain Kahler manifolds with c1​(M)>0c_{1}(M)>0 Inventiones Math. 89 (1987) 225-246.
  • [31] Tian, G. Kahler-Einstein metrics with positive scalar curvature Inventiones Math. 130 (1987) no. 1 1-37
  • [32] Tian, G. and Zhu, X.H. Uniqueness of Kahler-Ricci solitons Acta Math. 184 (2000) 271-305
  • [33] K. K. Uhlenbeck and S-T. Yau On the existence of hermitian Yang-Mills connections on stable bundles over compact Kahler manifolds Commun. Pure Applied Math. 39 (1986) 257-93
  • [34] Wang, X-J and Zhu, X.H. Kahler-Ricci solitons on toric manifolds with positive first Chern class Advances in Math. 188 (2004) 87-103
  • [35] Woodward, C.T. Spherical varieties and the existence of invriant Kahler structures Duke Math.Jour. 93 1998 (345-377)
  • [36] Zelditch, S. Bernstein polynomials, Bergmann kernels and toric Kahler varieties Arxiv DG/07052879

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