ScalingStacks

On Zhang's semipositive metrics

Gubler, Walter · Martin, Florent

Original paper

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

On Zhang’s semipositive metrics

Walter Gubler and Florent Martin
Abstract.

Zhang introduced semipositive metrics on a line bundle of a proper variety. In this paper, we generalize such metrics for a line bundle LL of a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space XX over any non-archimedean field KK. We prove various properties in this setting such as density of piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metrics in the space of continuous metrics on LL. If XX is proper scheme, then we show that algebraic, formal and piecewise linear metrics are the same. Our main result is that on a proper scheme XX over a discretely valued complete field KK, the set of semipositive model metrics is closed with respect to pointwise convergence generalizing a result from Boucksom, Favre and Jonsson where the residue characteristic was assumed to be 00.

MSC: Primary 14G40; Secondary 14G22

[03AH]

1. Introduction

An arithmetic intersection theory on arithmetic surfaces was introduced by Arakelov and used by Faltings to prove the Mordell conjecture. In higher dimensions, the theory was developed by Gillet and Soulé which proved to be a very useful tool in diophantine geometry. To produce arithmetic intersection numbers from a given line bundle LL on a proper variety XX over a number field KK, one has to endow the complexification of LL with a smooth hermitian metric and one has to choose an 𝒪K{\mathcal{O}}_{K}-model (𝒳,ℒ)({\mathscr{X}},{\mathscr{L}}) for (X,L)(X,L).

Zhang [Zha95] realized that the contribution of a non-archimedean place vv to this arithmetic intersection number is completely determined by a metric on L⁡(Kv)L(K_{v}) associated to ℒ{\mathscr{L}}, where KvK_{v} is the completion of KK at vv. This adelic point of view is very pleasant as it allows to deal with archimedean and non-archimedean places in a similar way. Motivated by his studies of the Bogomolov conjecture [Zha93], Zhang [Zha95] introduced semipositive adelic metrics as a uniform limit of metrics induced by nef models and he showed that every polarized dynamical system has a canonical metric inducing the canonical height of Call and Silverman.

In [Gub98], it became clear that Zhang’s metrics can be generalized to any non-archimedean field KK working with formal models of the line bundle over the valuation ring. It turned out that such metrics are continuous on the Berkovich analytification of the line bundle and so we call them continuous semipositive metrics.

Chambert-Loir introduced measures c1(L,∥∥)∧nc_{1}(L,{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|})^{\wedge n} on the Berkovich space Xan{X^{\rm an}} for a continuous semipositive metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} of a line bundle LL over XX ([Cha06], [Gub07a]). These measures are non-archimedean equidistribution measures as in Yuan’s equidistribution theorem [Yua08] over number fields (see also [CT09]). The analogue over function fields was proven in [Fab09], [Gub08] and gave rise to progress for the geometric Bogomolov conjecture [Gub07a], [Yam13, Yam16].

Continuous semipositive metrics played an important role in the study of the arithmetic geometry of toric varieties due to Burgos-Gil, Philippon and Sombra, see [BPS14], [BPS15], [BPS16], [BMPS16] with Moriwaki and [BPRS15] with Rivera-Letelier. Katz–Rabinoff–Zureick-Brown [KRZ15] used semipositive model metrics to give explicit uniform bounds for the number of rational points in situations suitable to the Chabauty–Coleman method.

For the non-archimedean Monge–Ampère problem, continuous semipositive metrics are of central importance. Uniqueness up to scaling was shown by Yuan and Zhang [YZ16]. In case of residue characteristic 00, a solution was given by Boucksom, Favre and Jonsson [BFJ16, BFJ15] using an algebraicity condition which was removed in [BGJKM].

Semipositive model metrics played also a role in the thesis of Thuillier [Thu05] on potential theory on curves, in the work of Chambert-Loir and Ducros on forms and currents on Berkovich spaces [CD12] and in the study of delta-forms in [GK14, GK15].

Looking at the above references, one observes that the authors work either under the hypothesis that the valuation is discrete or that KK is algebraically closed. The reasoning behind the former is that the valuation ring and hence the models are noetherian. If KK is algebraically closed, then the valuation ring is not noetherian (unless the valuation is trivial, but we exclude this case here). Working with formal models using Raynaud’s theory, this is not really a problem. The assumption that KK is algebraically closed is used to have plenty of formal models which have locally the form Spf⁡(𝒜0){\rm Spf}({\mathscr{A}}^{0}), where 𝒜0{\mathscr{A}}^{0} is the subring of power bounded elements in an KK-affinoid algebra 𝒜{\mathscr{A}}. It has further the advantage that finite base changes are not necessary in the semistable reduction theorem or in de Jong’s alteration theorems. This division has the annoying consequence that many results obtained under one of these hypotheses cannot be used under the other hypothesis. Moreover, there is a growing group of people who would like to use Zhang’s metrics over any non-archimedean base field. The goal of this paper is to remedy this situation and to study these metrics in the utmost generality which is available to us.

From now on, we assume that KK is a non-archimedean field which means in this paper that KK is a field endowed with a non-trivial non-archimedean complete absolute value. We denote the valuation ring by K∘{K^{\circ}}.

We first restrict us to the case of a line bundle LL on a proper scheme XX over KK. Later on, we prove many results more generally for paracompact strictly KK-analytic spaces. We call a metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LanL^{\rm an} algebraic (resp. formal) if it is induced by a line bundle ℒ{\mathscr{L}} on a flat proper scheme 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} (resp. a line bundle 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} on an admissible formal scheme 𝔛{\mathfrak{X}}) over K∘{K^{\circ}} with generic fibre XX and with L=ℒ|XL={\mathscr{L}}|_{X}. We use the notation ∥∥=∥∥ℒ{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathscr{L}}. Such a metric is called semipositive if ℒ{\mathscr{L}} (resp. 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}}) restricts to a nef line bundle on the special fibre of 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} (resp. 𝔛{\mathfrak{X}}). More generally, we call ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} a model metric if there is a non-zero k∈ℕk\in{\mathbb{N}} such that ∥∥⊗k{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}^{\otimes k} is an algebraic metric. Then a model metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is called semipositive if ∥∥⊗k{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}^{\otimes k} is semipositive in the previous sense. We say that ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a continuous semipositive metric if it is the uniform limit of a sequence of semipositive model metrics on Lan{L^{\rm an}}.

We note that the above definitions are global definitions. It is desirable to have local analytic definitions. Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space and LL a line bundle on VV. First, we say that a metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LL is a piecewise linear metric if there is a G{\rm G}-covering (Vi)i∈I(V_{i})_{i\in I} of VV (i.e. a covering with respect to the G-topology on VV) and frames sis_{i} of LL over ViV_{i} with ‖si‖≡1\|s_{i}\|\equiv 1. Note that such metrics are already considered in [Gub98], but they were called formal there which is a bit confusing. We say that a metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear if there is a G{\rm G}-covering (Vi)i∈I(V_{i})_{i\in I} of VV and some integers (ki)i∈I(k_{i})_{i\in I} such that for each i∈Ii\in I, the restriction of ∥∥⊗ki{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}^{\otimes k_{i}} to ViV_{i} is a piecewise linear metric on ViV_{i}. We refer to Section 2 for details and properties.

Following a suggestion of Tony Yue Yu, we call a piecewise linear metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} semipositive in x∈Vx\in V if xx has a strictly KK-affinoid domain WW of VV as a neighbourhood (in the Berkovich topology) such that the restriction of ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} to L|WL|_{W} is a semipositive formal metric. This notion was studied in [GK15] for KK algebraically closed. A semipositive piecewise linear metric on LL is a piecewise linear metric which is semipositive in every x∈Vx\in V. Semipositive metrics are studied in Section 3. We highlight here the following result which is useful in comparing the various definitions mentioned above.

[03AI]
Theorem 1.1.

The following are equivalent for a metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on the line bundle LanL^{\rm an} over a proper scheme XX:

  • (a)

    ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is an algebraic metric;

  • (b)

    ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a formal metric;

  • (c)

    ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a piecewise linear metric.

The equivalence remains true if we replace “metric” by “semipositive metric” in every item.

As seen in Remark 2.5, the equivalence of (a) and (b) follows from [GK14, Proposition 8.13] (as the argument does not use the assumption that KK is algebraically closed). The equivalence of (b) and (c) holds more generally over any paracompact strictly KK-analytic space as shown in Proposition 2.8. This equivalence was known before only in case of a compact reduced space over an algebraically closed field. Neither base change nor the old argument can be used and so we give an entirely new argument here. In the semipositive case, the equivalence of (a) and (b) follows immediately from Proposition 3.5. Finally, the equivalence of (b) and (c) is shown in Proposition 3.10. It holds more generally for a boundaryless paracompact strictly KK-analytic space.

We also prove the following result (Theorem 2.15) which generalizes [Gub98, Theorem 7.12] from the compact to the paracompact case.

[03AJ]
Theorem 1.2.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space with a line bundle LL. If ∥⁣∥\|\ \| is a continuous metric on LL, then there is a sequence (∥∥n)n∈ℕ(\|\ \|_{n})_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}} of piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metrics on LL which converges uniformly to ∥⁣∥\|\ \|.

Let us come back to semipositive metrics. For this, let us consider XX a proper scheme over KK. It is a natural question if the notion of semipositivity is closed in the space of model metrics of a given line bundle LL of XX. First, we look at this question for uniform convergence of metrics. We consider a model metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LanL^{\rm an} which is semipositive as a continuous metric, which means by definition that it is uniform limit of semipositive model metrics on LanL^{\rm an}. Then the closedness problem is equivalent to show that ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive as a model metric. By passing to a tensor power, we may assume that ∥∥=∥∥ℒ{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathscr{L}} for a line bundle ℒ{\mathscr{L}} on a model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of XX. By assumption, ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is the uniform limit of semipositive model metrics ∥∥n{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{n} on LanL^{\rm an}. For every n∈ℕn\in{\mathbb{N}}, there is a non-zero kn∈ℕk_{n}\in{\mathbb{N}} such that ∥∥n⊗kn{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{n}^{\otimes k_{n}} is an algebraic metric associated to a nef line bundle ℒn{\mathscr{L}}_{n} living on a proper flat scheme 𝒳n{\mathscr{X}}_{n} over K∘{K^{\circ}} with generic fiber XX. Since the models 𝒳n{\mathscr{X}}_{n} might be completely unrelated to 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}, it is non-obvious to show that ℒ{\mathscr{L}} is nef if all the line bundles ℒn{\mathscr{L}}_{n} are nef.

An even more challenging problem is to show that the space of model metrics is closed with respect to pointwise convergence. The solution of this problem is the main result of this paper:

[03AK]
Theorem 1.3.

Let us assume that KK is discretely valued. Let XX be a proper scheme over KK with a line bundle LL. We assume that the model metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LanL^{\rm an} is a pointwise limit of semipositive model metrics on LanL^{\rm an}. Then ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a semipositive model metric.

If the residue characteristic of KK is zero, then this theorem was proven by Boucksom, Favre and Jonsson [BFJ16] Theorem 5.11 using multiplier ideals. They said in [BFJ16] Remark 5.13 that it would be interesting to have a proof along the lines of Goodman’s paper [Goo69, p.178, Proposition 8]. This is what we provide in Theorem 1.3 with a proof holding for any discretely valued non-archimedean field and hence we obtain as an immediate consequence:

[03AL]
Corollary 1.4.

A model metric is semipositive as a model metric if and only if it is semipositive as a continuous metric.

For arbitrary non-archimedean fields, this result was first proven in [GK15, Proposition 8.13] using a lifting theorem for closed subvarieties of the special fibre. Amaury Thuillier told us that he found a similar (unpublished) lifting argument to prove Corollary 1.4.

Theorem 1.3 will follow from Theorem 5.6 which is a slightly more general version about pointwise convergence of θ\theta-plurisubharmonic model functions for a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ\theta. These notions from [BFJ16] will be introduced in Section 4.

[03AM]

1.1. Terminology

For sets, in A⊂BA\subset B equality is not excluded and A∖BA\setminus B denotes the complement of BB in AA. ℕ{\mathbb{N}} includes 00. All the rings and algebras are commutative with unity. For a ring AA, the group of units is denoted by A×A^{\times}. If VV is a topological space, for a set U⊂VU\subset V we denote by U∘U^{\circ} the topological interior of UU in VV. A variety over a field kk is an irreducible and reduced scheme which is separated and of finite type over kk.

For the rest of the paper we fix a non-archimedean field KK. This means here that the field KK is equipped with a non-archimedean absolute value ||:K→ℝ+|\ |:K\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+} which is complete and non-trivial. Let v:=−log||v:=-\log|\phantom{a}| be the corresponding valuation. We have a valuation ring K∘:={x∈K∣v⁡(x)≥0}K^{\circ}:=\{x\in K\mid v(x)\geq 0\} with maximal ideal K∘⁣∘:={x∈K∣v⁡(x)>0}K^{\circ\circ}:=\{x\in K\mid v(x)>0\} and residue field K~:=K∘/K∘⁣∘\widetilde{K}:=K^{\circ}/K^{\circ\circ}. We denote by K¯\overline{K} an algebraic closure of KK and we set ℂK≔K¯^{\mathbb{C}}_{K}\coloneqq\widehat{\overline{K}} for the completion of K¯\overline{K}.

[03AN]

1.2. Acknowledgements

We thank Vladimir Berkovich and Tony Yue Yue for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the collaborative research center SFB 1085 funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

[03AP]

2. Formal and piecewise linear metrics

In this section, KK is an arbitrary non-archimedean field endowed with a non-trivial complete absolute value. For line bundles on paracompact strictly KK-analytic spaces, we will introduce the global notion of formal metrics and the local notion of piecewise linear metrics. We will collect many properties and we will show that both notions agree. At the end, we will prove a density result for piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metrics.

[03AQ]
2.1.

Let XX be a proper scheme over KK. Then an algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of XX is a proper flat scheme 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} over K∘{K^{\circ}} with a fixed isomorphism from the generic fiber 𝒳η{\mathscr{X}}_{\eta} to XX. Usually, we will identify 𝒳η{\mathscr{X}}_{\eta} with XX along this fixed isomorphism.

It follows from Nagata’s embedding theorem that an algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of XX exists. The set of isomorphism classes of algebaic K∘{K^{\circ}}-models of XX is partially order by morphisms of K∘{K^{\circ}}-models of XX (where by definition such a map extends the identity on XX). A diagonal argument shows easily that the set of isomorphism classes is directed with respect to this partial order.

Let LL be a line bundle on XX. An algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝒳,ℒ)({\mathscr{X}},{\mathscr{L}}) of (X,L)(X,L) consists of an algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of XX and of a line bundle ℒ{\mathscr{L}} on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} with a fixed isomorphism from ℒ|X{\mathscr{L}}|_{X} to LL which we use again for identification. It follows from Vojta’s version of Nagata’s embedding theorem [Voj07, Theorem 5.7] and noetherian approximation that (X,L)(X,L) has always an algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model.

[03AR]
2.2.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space. We use here the analytic spaces and the terminology introduced by Berkovich in [Ber93, Section 1]. Then a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model is an admissible formal scheme 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} over K∘{K^{\circ}} [Bos14, §7.4] with a fixed isomorphism 𝔙η≅V{\mathfrak{V}}_{\eta}\cong V on the generic fiber 𝔙η{\mathfrak{V}}_{\eta} which we again use for identification. Note that we have a canonical reduction map π:V→𝔙s\pi:V\to{\mathfrak{V}}_{s} to the special fiber 𝔙s{\mathfrak{V}}_{s} (see [GRW15, Section 2]). If ζY\zeta_{Y} is the generic point of an irreducible component YY of 𝔙s{\mathfrak{V}}_{s}, then xY≔π−1​(ζY)x_{Y}\coloneqq\pi^{-1}(\zeta_{Y}) is finite and the points in this preimage are called divisorial points of VV.

The category of paracompact strictly KK-analytic spaces is equivalent to the category of quasiseparated rigid analytic varieties over KK with a strictly KK-affinoid G{\rm G}-covering of finite type (see [Ber93, §1.6]) and hence we may apply Raynaud’s theorem from [Bos14, Theorem 8.4.4]. In particular, we see that a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of VV exists and that the set of isomorphism classes of formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-models is again directed. Some of the references in the following require that VV is compact, because the original formulation of Raynaud’s theorem in [BL93a, Theorem 4.1] used that the underlying rigid space is quasicompact and quasiseparated. This will be bypassed by using the more general version in [Bos14, Theorem 8.4.4] for paracompact VV (remember that paracompact includes Hausdorff).

Let LL be a line bundle on VV which means that LL is a locally free sheaf of rank 11 on the G{\rm G}-topology. We always consider the G{\rm G}-topology induced by the strictly KK-affinoid domains in VV. A formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) of (V,L)(V,L) consists of a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} of VV and a line bundle 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} on 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} with a fixed isomorphism from 𝔏|V{\mathfrak{L}}|_{V} to LL which we use for identification. The argument in [Gub98, Lemma 7.6] shows that (V,L)(V,L) always has a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model.

[03AS]
Remark 2.3.

If XX is a proper scheme over KK with a line bundle LL, then we denote the analytifications by Xan{X^{\rm an}} and Lan{L^{\rm an}} (in the category of Berkovich spaces). By formal completion, every algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝒳,ℒ)({\mathscr{X}},{\mathscr{L}}) of (X,L)(X,L) induces a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝒳^,ℒ^)(\hat{{\mathscr{X}}},\hat{{\mathscr{L}}}) of (Xan,Lan)({X^{\rm an}},{L^{\rm an}}). Note that the special fiber 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s} of 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} is canonically isomorphic to the special fiber of the formal completion 𝒳^\hat{{\mathscr{X}}} and hence the above yields a reduction map π:Xan→𝒳s\pi:{X^{\rm an}}\to{\mathscr{X}}_{s}. Let YY be an irreducible component of 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s} with generic point ζY\zeta_{Y}, then the points of the finite set π−1​(ζY)\pi^{-1}(\zeta_{Y}) are called divisorial point associated to YY. We set XdivX^{\rm div} for the set of all divisorial points associated to algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-models of XX.

[03AT]
Definition 2.4.

Let (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) be a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of (V,L)(V,L) as in 2.2. Then we get an associated formal metric ∥∥𝔏{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{L}} on LL uniquely determined by requiring ‖s‖𝔏=1\|s\|_{\mathfrak{L}}=1 on the generic fibre WW of any frame ss of 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} over any formal open subset 𝔚{\mathfrak{W}} of 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}}. This is well-defined because a change of frame involves an invertible function ff on 𝔚{\mathfrak{W}} and we have |f|=1|f|=1 on WW.

[03AU]
Remark 2.5.

If (𝒳,ℒ)({\mathscr{X}},{\mathscr{L}}) is an algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of (X,L)(X,L) as in 2.1, then we get an associated algebraic metric ∥∥ℒ{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathscr{L}} on Lan{L^{\rm an}} by using the above construction for the formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝒳^,ℒ^)(\hat{{\mathscr{X}}},\hat{{\mathscr{L}}}) of (Xan,Lan)({X^{\rm an}},{L^{\rm an}}) from Remark 2.3. By construction, every algebraic metric is a formal metric. The converse is also true as shown in [GK14, Proposition 8.13] (as the argument does not use the assumption that KK is algebraically closed).

We have the following extension result from [GK15, Proposition 5.11]

[03AV]
Proposition 2.6.

Let LL be line bundle on a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space VV over KK and let WW be a compact strictly KK-analytic domain of VV. Then every formal metric on the restriction of LL to WW extends to a formal metric on LL.

[03AW]
Proof.

Since this is stated here under more general assumptions than in [GK15, Proposition 5.11], we sketch the argument. Let (𝔚,𝔏)({\mathfrak{W}},{\mathfrak{L}}) be the K∘{K^{\circ}}-model for the given formal metric on L|WL|_{W}. We may assume that 𝔚{\mathfrak{W}} is a formal open subset of a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} of VV [Bos14, Lemma 8.4.5]. By the argument in [BL93a, Lemma 5.7], there is a coherent 𝒪𝔙{\mathcal{O}}_{\mathfrak{V}}-module ℱ{\mathscr{F}} on 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} which extends 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}}. This works even for paracompact VV as noted in the proof of [CD12, Proposition 6.2.13] and the argument there (or in the proof of [Gub98, Lemma 7.6]) shows that after replacing 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} by a suitable admissible blowing-up, we may assume that ℱ{\mathscr{F}} is a line bundle. Then the associated formal metric satisfies the claim. ∎

[03AX]
Definition 2.7.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space with a line bundle LL. A metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LL is called piecewise linear if there is a G{\rm G}-covering (Vi)i∈I(V_{i})_{i\in I} and frames sis_{i} of LL over ViV_{i} for every i∈Ii\in I such that ‖si‖=1\|s_{i}\|=1 on ViV_{i}. A function φ:V→ℝ\varphi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} is called a piecewise linear function if it induces a piecewise linear metric on the trivial line bundle 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V}. Note that these are G{\rm G}-local definitions (see [GK15, Proposition 5.10] for the argument).

[03AY]
Proposition 2.8.

Let ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} be a metric of a line bundle LL on a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space VV. Then ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is formal if and only if it is piecewise linear.

[03AZ]
Proof.

Clearly, every formal metric is piecewise linear. To prove the converse, we may assume that VV is connected. It is a general fact from topology (see [Bou71, chap. 1, §9, Théorème 5]) that a connected locally compact space is paracompact if and only if it is countable at infinity. It follows that there is a finite or a countable G{\rm G}-open covering (Vi)i∈I(V_{i})_{i\in I} of VV of finite type by strictly KK-affinoid domains ViV_{i} with frames sis_{i} of L|ViL|_{V_{i}} such that ‖si‖=1\|s_{i}\|=1 on ViV_{i}. Then ViV_{i} is the Berkovich spectrum of a strictly KK-affinoid algebra 𝒜i{\mathscr{A}}_{i}. Obviously, there is an admissible K∘{K^{\circ}}-algebra AiA_{i} with 𝒜i=Ai⊗K∘K{\mathscr{A}}_{i}=A_{i}\otimes_{K^{\circ}}K. For fi∈𝒜i∘f_{i}\in{\mathscr{A}}_{i}^{\circ}, the K∘{K^{\circ}}-algebra Ai​[fi]A_{i}[f_{i}] is

an admissible K∘{K^{\circ}}-algebra [Bos14, Lemma 8.4.6].

Using the existence of a formal metric on LanL^{\rm an}, we may assume that L=𝒪VL={\mathcal{O}}_{V} and hence the frames sis_{i} are invertible functions on the sets ViV_{i}. Using that VV is paracompact, the underlying rigid space is quasiseparated and hence Vi​j=Vi∩Vj=Spf⁡(𝒜i​j)V_{ij}=V_{i}\cap V_{j}={\rm Spf}({\mathscr{A}}_{ij}) for some strictly KK-affinoid algebra 𝒜i​j{\mathscr{A}}_{ij}. If fi​j=si/sjf_{ij}=s_{i}/s_{j}, then fi​j∈(𝒜i​j∘)×f_{ij}\in({\mathscr{A}}_{ij}^{\circ})^{\times}. Using the above, we choose a formal affine K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝔚i​j{\mathfrak{W}}_{ij} with generic fiber Vi​jV_{ij} such that fi​j∈𝒪⁡(𝔚i​j)f_{ij}\in{\mathcal{O}}({\mathfrak{W}}_{ij}).

In the following, we assume that I=ℕ∖{0}I={\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\} (the finite case is similar and even easier) and we consider k∈ℕk\in{\mathbb{N}}. By an inductive procedure, we will construct a formal model 𝔙(k){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k)} of VV such that ViV_{i} is the generic fiber of a formal open subset 𝔙i(k){\mathfrak{V}}_{i}^{(k)} of 𝔙(k){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k)} for every i∈Ii\in I and such that 𝔙i(k)∩𝔙j(k){\mathfrak{V}}_{i}^{(k)}\cap{\mathfrak{V}}_{j}^{(k)} is lying over 𝔚i​j{\mathfrak{W}}_{ij} for every i,j∈{0,…,k}i,j\in\{0,\dots,k\}. By this we mean that for every i,j∈{0,…,k}i,j\in\{0,\dots,k\} there exists a morphism 𝔙i(k)∩𝔙j(k)→𝔚i​j{\mathfrak{V}}_{i}^{(k)}\cap{\mathfrak{V}}_{j}^{(k)}\to{\mathfrak{W}}_{ij} which is the identity on the generic fibre.

Note that the case k=0k=0 follows from [Bos14, Lemma 8.4.5]. Let k≥1k\geq 1 and assume that 𝔙(k−1){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k-1)} is already constructed. By Raynaud’s theorem and [BL93b, Corollary 5.4], there is an admissible formal blowing up pkp_{k} of 𝔙k(k−1){\mathfrak{V}}_{k}^{(k-1)} such that Vi​kV_{ik} (resp. Vk​iV_{ki}) is the generic fiber of a formal open subset lying over 𝔚i​k{\mathfrak{W}}_{ik} (resp. 𝔚k​i{\mathfrak{W}}_{ki}) for i=1,…,ki=1,\dots,k. By [Bos14, Proposition 8.2.13], we may extend pkp_{k} to an admissible formal blowing up 𝔙(k){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k)} of 𝔙(k−1){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k-1)} with center ZZ in the special fiber such that ZZ is disjoint from every 𝔙i(k−1){\mathfrak{V}}_{i}^{(k-1)} with i≤k−1i\leq k-1 satisfying 𝔙i(k−1)∩𝔙k(k−1)=∅{\mathfrak{V}}_{i}^{(k-1)}\cap{\mathfrak{V}}_{k}^{(k-1)}=\emptyset. Then 𝔙(k){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k)} satisfies the claim with 𝔙i(k){\mathfrak{V}}_{i}^{(k)} equal to the preimage of 𝔙i(k−1){\mathfrak{V}}_{i}^{(k-1)} in 𝔙(k){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k)}.

Using that the G\rm G-covering (Vi)i∈I(V_{i})_{i\in I} is of finite type, the above construction shows that the formal models 𝔙(k){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k)} eventually become stable over 𝔙i(0){\mathfrak{V}}_{i}^{(0)} for any i∈Ii\in I and hence we get a formal model 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} of VV lying above all the models 𝔙(k){\mathfrak{V}}^{(k)}. It has the property that every ViV_{i} is the generic fiber of a formal open subset 𝔙i{\mathfrak{V}}_{i} and that 𝔙i∩𝔙j{\mathfrak{V}}_{i}\cap{\mathfrak{V}}_{j} is lying over 𝔚i​j{\mathfrak{W}}_{ij} for every i,j∈Ii,j\in I. Since fi​jf_{ij} and fj​if_{ji} are both in 𝒪⁡(𝔙i∩𝔙j){\mathcal{O}}({\mathfrak{V}}_{i}\cap{\mathfrak{V}}_{j}), we see that fi​jf_{ij} is invertible on 𝔙i∩𝔙j{\mathfrak{V}}_{i}\cap{\mathfrak{V}}_{j}. This means that (si)i∈I(s_{i})_{i\in I} is a vertical Cartier divisor on 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} inducing the metric. ∎

[03B0]
Definition 2.9.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space with a line bundle LL. A metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LL is called piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear if for every x∈Vx\in V there exists an open neighbourhood WW of xx and a non-zero n∈ℕn\in{\mathbb{N}} such that ∥∥⊗n|W{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}^{\otimes n}_{|W} is a piecewise linear metric on L⊗n|WL^{\otimes n}_{|W}. A function φ:V→ℝ\varphi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} is called a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function if it induces a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metric on the trivial line bundle 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V}.

[03B1]
Proposition 2.10.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space with a line bundle LL. Then the following properties hold:

  • (a)

    A piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metric on LL is continuous.

  • (b)

    The isometry classes of piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metrics on line bundles of VV form an abelian group with respect to ⊗\otimes.

  • (c)

    The pull-back f∗∥∥f^{*}{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} of a piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LL with respect to a morphism f:W→Vf:W\to V of paracompact analytic spaces is a piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metric on f∗​Lf^{*}L.

  • (d)

    The minimum and the maximum of two piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metrics on LL are again piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metrics on LL.

[03B2]
Proof.

These properties are proved in [Gub98, Section 7] under the assumption that KK is algebraically closed and VV is compact. The assumption KK algebraically closed was not used in the arguments. Since (a)–(d) are local statements, we can deduce them from the corresponding statements in loc.  cit. ∎

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space. Recall that for U⊂VU\subset V, we denote the topological interior of UU in VV by U∘U^{\circ}.

[03B3]
Lemma 2.11.

Let W⊂U⊂VW\subset U\subset V where W,UW,U are compact strictly KK-analytic domains of VV with W⊂U∘W\subset U^{\circ}. Let f:W→ℝf\colon W\to{\mathbb{R}} be a piecewise linear function. Then ff extends to a piecewise linear function φ:V→ℝ\varphi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} such that supp⁡(φ)⊂U{\rm supp}(\varphi)\subset U.

[03B4]
Proof.

By compactness of U∖U∘U\setminus U^{\circ}, there exists a compact strictly KK-analytic domain Z⊂VZ\subset V such that ZZ is a neighbourhood of U∖U∘U\setminus U^{\circ} and W∩Z=∅W\cap Z=\emptyset. Hence W​∐ZW\coprod Z is a compact strictly KK-analytic domain of VV and we consider the piecewise linear function on W​∐ZW\coprod Z defined by ff on WW and by 00 on ZZ. Then we apply Proposition 2.6 to L=𝒪VL=\mathcal{O}_{V}, in which case formal metrics correspond to piecewise linear functions (see Proposition 2.8). We deduce that there exists a piecewise linear function g:V→ℝg\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} which agrees with ff on WW and which agrees with 00 on ZZ. But since ZZ is a neighborhood of U∖U∘U\setminus U^{\circ}, we deduce that the function φ:V→ℝ\varphi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} defined by

φ⁡(x)={g⁡(x)if​x∈U0if​x∉U\varphi(x)=\begin{cases}g(x)&{\rm if}\ x\in U\\ 0&{\rm if}\ x\notin U\end{cases}

is still piecewise linear. Since φ\varphi extends ff and supp⁡(φ)⊂U{\rm supp}(\varphi)\subset U, we get the claim. ∎

[03B5]
Lemma 2.12.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space. Let W⊂VW\subset V be a compact strictly KK-analytic domain of VV and let f:W→ℝf\colon W\to{\mathbb{R}} be a continuous function with f≥0f\geq 0. Then for any ε>0\varepsilon>0 there exists a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function φ\varphi on VV such that φ≥0\varphi\geq 0 and for all x∈Wx\in W we have f⁡(x)−ε≤φ⁡(x)≤f⁡(x)f(x)-\varepsilon\leq\varphi(x)\leq f(x).

[03B6]
Proof.

Since piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear functions are dense in the compact case [Gub98, Theorem 7.12], there exists a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function g:W→ℝg\colon W\to{\mathbb{R}} such that f−ε≤g≤ff-\varepsilon\leq g\leq f on WW. Since WW is compact, there is a non-zero k∈ℕk\in{\mathbb{N}} such that k​gkg is piecewise linear. By Proposition 2.6 and Proposition 2.8 applied to the formal metric on 𝒪V{\mathcal{O}}_{V} associated to k​gkg, there exists a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function ψ:V→ℝ\psi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} which extends gg. We then set φ≔max⁡(ψ,0)\varphi\coloneqq\max(\psi,0). By Proposition 2.10 (d), φ\varphi is piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear. By definition, we have φ≥0\varphi\geq 0. We have ψ≤f\psi\leq f on WW and ff is non-negative, hence we have φ≤f\varphi\leq f on WW. Finally, since f−ε≤ψf-\varepsilon\leq\psi on WW we also have that f−ε≤max⁡(ψ,0)=φf-\varepsilon\leq\max(\psi,0)=\varphi on WW. ∎

[03B7]
Proposition 2.13.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space VV. Let f:V→ℝf\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} be a continuous function on VV. Then ff can be uniformly approximated by piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear functions. In other words, for every ε>0\varepsilon>0 there exists a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function φ:V→ℝ\varphi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} such that supx∈V|f⁡(x)−φ⁡(x)|≤ε\sup_{x\in V}|f(x)-\varphi(x)|\leq\varepsilon.

[03B8]
Proof.

We will use that the result holds when VV is compact [Gub98, Theorem 7.12]. Note that in [Gub98, §7], KK was assumed to be algebraically closed, but the argument for [Gub98, Theorem 7.12] does not use this assumption and so we can use the result over any non-archimedean field. Let f+≔max⁡(f,0)f_{+}\coloneqq\max(f,0) and f−≔max⁡(−f,0)f_{-}\coloneqq\max(-f,0) so that f=f+−f−f=f_{+}-f_{-}. Hence replacing ff by f+f_{+} or f−f_{-} we can assume that f≥0f\geq 0.

We can work separately on the connected components of VV, hence we may assume that VV is connected. As in the proof of Proposition 2.8, we can find a locally finite covering (Ti)i∈I(T_{i})_{i\in I} of VV made of compact strictly KK-analytic domains with II finite or countable. In the following, we assume I=ℕI={\mathbb{N}}. The finite case is similar and easier. Applying a compactness argument to the TiT_{i}’s, we can find (Wi)i∈ℕ(W_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} and (Ui)i∈ℕ(U_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} two locally finite coverings of VV by compact strictly KK-analytic domains of VV such that for all i∈ℕi\in{\mathbb{N}} we have Wi⊂Ui∘W_{i}\subset U_{i}^{\circ}.

Let us now fix ε>0\varepsilon>0 and let us construct a family of piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear functions (φi)i∈ℕ(\varphi_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} such that

  1. (i)

    for all i∈ℕi\in{\mathbb{N}}, supp⁡(φi)⊂Ui{\rm supp}(\varphi_{i})\subset U_{i} and φi≥0\varphi_{i}\geq 0.

  2. (ii)

    for all n∈ℕn\in{\mathbb{N}} we have f≥∑i=1nφi≥f−εf\geq\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\geq f-\varepsilon on ∪i=1nWi\cup_{i=1}^{n}W_{i}.

  3. (iii)

    f≥∑i=1nφif\geq\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i} on VV.

Observe that this will conclude the proof of the proposition since then φ≔∑i∈ℕφi\varphi\coloneqq\sum_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}\varphi_{i} is a well defined piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function such that |f−φ|≤ε|f-\varphi|\leq\varepsilon. The rest of the proof is dedicated to construct inductively a family (φi)i∈ℕ(\varphi_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} satisfying the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii).

Let us consider n≥1n\geq 1 and let us assume that we are given piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear functions φ1,…,φn\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{n} satisfying the above conditions. We will now construct a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function φn+1\varphi_{n+1} such that φ1,…,φn+1\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{n+1} satisfies the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii).

By the density result in the compact case [Gub98, Theorem 7.12], we know that there exists a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function g:Wn+1→ℝg\colon W_{n+1}\to{\mathbb{R}} such that

(2.13.1) f−∑i=1nφi−ε≤g≤f−∑i=1nφion​Wn+1f-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}-\varepsilon\leq g\leq f-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\hskip 20.0pt{\rm on}\ W_{n+1}

Then by Lemma 2.11 applied to gg and Wn+1⊂Un+1⊂VW_{n+1}\subset U_{n+1}\subset V, there exists a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function Ψ:V→ℝ\Psi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} which extends gg and with supp⁡(Ψ)⊂Un+1{\rm supp}(\Psi)\subset U_{n+1}. Then (2.13.1) becomes

(2.13.2) f−ε≤Ψ+∑i=1nφi≤fon​Wn+1.f-\varepsilon\leq\Psi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\leq f\hskip 20.0pt{\rm on}\ W_{n+1}.

Then we set

ψ≔max⁡(0,Ψ).\psi\coloneqq\max(0,\Psi).

From this definition, we get that supp⁡(ψ)⊂supp⁡(Ψ)⊂Un+1{\rm supp}(\psi)\subset{\rm supp}(\Psi)\subset U_{n+1}. It is a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function by Proposition 2.10 (d) and it satisfies ψ≥0\psi\geq 0. Now, (2.13.2) combined with the condition (iii) for nn yields

(2.13.3) ψ+∑i=1nφi≤fon​Wn+1.\psi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\leq f\hskip 20.0pt\ {\rm on}\ W_{n+1}.

Also, since Ψ≤ψ\Psi\leq\psi, we deduce from (2.13.2) that

(2.13.4) f−ε≤ψ+∑i=1nφion​Wn+1.f-\varepsilon\leq\psi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\hskip 20.0pt{\rm on}\ W_{n+1}.

On the other hand, since ψ≥0\psi\geq 0, the condition (ii) for nn yields

(2.13.5) f−ε≤ψ+∑i=1nφion​⋃i=1nWi.f-\varepsilon\leq\psi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\ \hskip 20.0pt\ {\rm on}\ \bigcup_{i=1}^{n}W_{i}.

From (2.13.2), (2.13.3), (2.13.4) and (2.13.5), we deduce that

(2.13.6) f−ε≤ψ+∑i=1nφi≤fon​⋃i=1n+1Wi.f-\varepsilon\leq\psi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\leq f\hskip 20.0pt\ {\rm on}\ \bigcup_{i=1}^{n+1}W_{i}.

Lemma 2.12 applied to the non negative function f−∑i=1nφi:V→ℝf-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} and to the compact KK-analytic domain ∪i=1n+1Ui\cup_{i=1}^{n+1}U_{i} yields a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function χ:V→ℝ\chi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} such that χ≥0\chi\geq 0 and

(2.13.7) f−∑i=1nφi−ε≤χ≤f−∑i=1nφion​⋃i=1n+1Ui.f-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}-\varepsilon\leq\chi\leq f-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\hskip 20.0pt\ {\rm on}\ \bigcup_{i=1}^{n+1}U_{i}.

We then set

φn+1≔min⁡(ψ,χ).\varphi_{n+1}\coloneqq\min(\psi,\chi).

By Proposition 2.10 (d), φn+1\varphi_{n+1} is a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function. Since ψ≥0\psi\geq 0 and χ≥0\chi\geq 0 we get that φn+1≥0\varphi_{n+1}\geq 0 and we also get that for x∈Vx\in V, ψ⁡(x)=0⇒φn+1​(x)=0\psi(x)=0\Rightarrow\varphi_{n+1}(x)=0. This implies that supp⁡(φn+1)⊂supp⁡(ψ)⊂Un+1{\rm supp}(\varphi_{n+1})\subset{\rm supp}(\psi)\subset U_{n+1}. Hence (i) is satisfied for φn+1\varphi_{n+1}.

Let us now prove that

(2.13.8) ∑i=1n+1φi≤fon​V.\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\varphi_{i}\leq f\ \ {\rm on}\ V.

Let x∈Vx\in V. We first suppose that x∈Un+1x\in U_{n+1}. Then by (2.13.7), we have χ⁡(x)+∑i=1nφi​(x)≤f⁡(x)\chi(x)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}(x)\leq f(x). By definition of φn+1\varphi_{n+1}, we have φn+1≤χ\varphi_{n+1}\leq\chi hence

φn+1​(x)+∑i=1nφi​(x)≤χ⁡(x)+∑i=1nφi​(x)≤f⁡(x).\varphi_{n+1}(x)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}(x)\leq\chi(x)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}(x)\leq f(x).

If x∉Un+1x\notin U_{n+1}, then we have ψ⁡(x)=0\psi(x)=0 since supp⁡(ψ)⊂Un+1{\rm supp}(\psi)\subset U_{n+1}, hence φn+1​(x)=0\varphi_{n+1}(x)=0. So by the condition (iii) for nn, we get

∑i=1n+1φi​(x)=∑i=1nφi​(x)≤f⁡(x).\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\varphi_{i}(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}(x)\leq f(x).

This proves (2.13.8), whence condition (iii) holds for n+1n+1.

Let us finally prove that

f−ε≤∑i=1n+1φi≤fon​⋃i=1n+1Wi.f-\varepsilon\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\varphi_{i}\leq f\hskip 30.0pt{\rm on}\ \bigcup_{i=1}^{n+1}W_{i}.

The right inequality has been proven in (2.13.8) so it only remains to prove the left inequality. By (2.13.6), we have

(2.13.9) f−ε≤ψ+∑i=1nφion​⋃i=1n+1Wif-\varepsilon\leq\psi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\hskip 30.0pt{\rm on}\ \bigcup_{i=1}^{n+1}W_{i}

and by construction (see (2.13.7) having in mind that Wi⊂UiW_{i}\subset U_{i}), we have

(2.13.10) f−ε≤χ+∑i=1nφion​⋃i=1n+1Wi.f-\varepsilon\leq\chi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}\hskip 30.0pt{\rm on}\ \bigcup_{i=1}^{n+1}W_{i}.

Hence (2.13.9) and (2.13.10) yield that

f−ε≤min⁡(ψ,χ)+∑i=1nφi=∑i=1n+1φion​⋃i=1n+1Wif-\varepsilon\leq\min(\psi,\chi)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi_{i}=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\varphi_{i}\hskip 20.0pt{\rm on}\ \bigcup_{i=1}^{n+1}W_{i}

which proves condition (ii) for φ1,…,φn+1\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{n+1}. By induction, this proves the existence of a family (φi)i∈ℕ(\varphi_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} satisfying conditions (i), (ii) and (iii). ∎

[03B9]
Remark 2.14.

The proof of Proposition 2.13 also gives that if φ:V→ℝ\varphi\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} is a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear function on a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space VV, then there exists a family (φi)i∈I(\varphi_{i})_{i\in I} of piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear functions on VV such that the family supp​(φi)i∈I{\rm supp}(\varphi_{i})_{i\in I} is a locally finite family of compact sets subordinate to any given open covering of VV and such that φ=∑i∈Iφi\varphi=\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}. Indeed, in the above proof we may construct the covering UiU_{i} finer than the given open covering and then we may use ε=0\varepsilon=0 in the construction due to piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linearity.

[03BA]
Theorem 2.15.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space with a line bundle LL. If ∥⁣∥\|\ \| is a continuous metric on LL, then there is a sequence (∥∥n)n∈ℕ(\|\ \|_{n})_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}} of piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metrics on LL which converges uniformly to ∥⁣∥\|\ \|.

[03BB]
Proof.

The argument in [Gub98, Lemma 7.6] shows that LL admits a formal metric. Hence, tensoring by L−1L^{-1}, we can assume that L=𝒪VL=\mathcal{O}_{V} and we are reduced to prove that for any continuous function f:V→ℝf\colon V\to{\mathbb{R}} there exists a sequence of model functions (φn)n∈ℕ(\varphi_{n})_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}} which converges uniformly to ff which was done in Proposition 2.13. ∎

The next result deals with base change of piecewise linear metrics. We denote by ⊗^K​F\hat{\otimes}_{K}F the base change functor from the base field KK to a non-archimedean field FF applied to the category of strictly KK-analytic spaces or to the line bundles on such spaces. The argument for (b) is due to Yuan (see [Yua08, Lemma 3.5]).

[03BC]
Proposition 2.16.

Let LL be a line bundle on a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space VV and let F/KF/K be a non-archimedean field extension.

  • (a)

    The base change of a piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metric on LL is a piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metric on L​⊗^K​FL\hat{\otimes}_{K}F.

  • (b)

    If FF is a subfield of ℂK{\mathbb{C}}_{K} and if VV is compact, then every piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metric on L​⊗^K​FL\hat{\otimes}_{K}F is the base change of a unique piecewise linear (resp. piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear) metric on L​⊗^K​K′L\hat{\otimes}_{K}{K^{\prime}} for a suitable finite subextension K′/KK^{\prime}/K of F/KF/K.

[03BD]
Proof.

It follows from [Ber93, Theorem 1.6.1] that the base change of VV to FF is a paracompact strictly FF-analytic space. Property (a) is obvious.

To prove (b), we assume that ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a piecewise linear metric on L​⊗^K​FL\hat{\otimes}_{K}F. We have seen in 2.2 that (V,L)(V,L) has a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) and so we may assume that L=𝒪VL={\mathcal{O}}_{V} by passing to ∥∥/∥∥𝔏​⊗^K∘​F∘{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}/{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathfrak{L}}\hat{\otimes}_{{K^{\circ}}}F^{\circ}}. By Proposition 2.8, there is a formal F∘F^{\circ}-model (𝔙′′,𝔏′′)({\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime\prime},{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime\prime}) of (V​⊗^K​F,L​⊗^K​F)(V\hat{\otimes}_{K}F,L\hat{\otimes}_{K}F) such that ∥∥=∥∥𝔏′′{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime\prime}}. By Raynaud’s theorem [BL93a, Theorem 4.1], we may assume that there is an admissible formal blowing up 𝔙′′→𝔙​⊗^K∘​F∘{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime\prime}\to{\mathfrak{V}}\hat{\otimes}_{{K^{\circ}}}F^{\circ}. Note that L=𝒪VL={\mathcal{O}}_{V} yields that 𝔏′′=𝒪⁡(E){\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime\prime}={\mathcal{O}}(E) for a vertical Cartier divisor EE on 𝔙′′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime\prime}. Replacing ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} by a suitable multiple, we may assume that EE is an effective Cartier divisor.

An approximation argument based on the density of the algebraic closure of KK in FF shows that the coherent ideal of the admissible formal blowing up and hence the formal model 𝔙′′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime\prime} are defined on a formal (K′)∘(K^{\prime})^{\circ}-model 𝔙′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} for a finite subextension K′/KK^{\prime}/K of F/KF/K. We choose a finite covering (𝔘i′)i∈I({\mathfrak{U}}_{i}^{\prime})_{i\in I} of 𝔙′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} by formal affine open subsets 𝔘i′{\mathfrak{U}}_{i}^{\prime} of 𝔙′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime}. Then the coherent sheaf of ideals 𝒪⁡(−E′′){\mathcal{O}}(-E^{\prime\prime}) restricted to 𝔘i′​⊗^(K′)∘​F∘{\mathfrak{U}}_{i}^{\prime}\hat{\otimes}_{(K^{\prime})^{\circ}}F^{\circ} is generated by finitely many regular functions. A similar approximation argument as above shows that all these generators can be replaced by regular functions on 𝔘i′{\mathfrak{U}}_{i}^{\prime} if we replace K′K^{\prime} by a larger finite subextension of F/KF/K. We conclude that 𝔏′′=𝒪⁡(E){\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime\prime}={\mathcal{O}}(E) is defined on 𝔙′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} proving (b). Note that uniqueness is obvious. ∎

[03BE]

3. Semipositive metrics

In this section, KK is an arbitrary non-archimedean field endow with a non-trivial complete absolute value. We will first introduce semipositive formal metrics. We have seen in Proposition 2.8 that formal metrics are the same as piecewise linear metrics and hence everything applies to piecewise linear metrics as well.

[03BF]
3.1.

Let XX be a proper scheme over KK with a line bundle LL over XX. We call an algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝒳,ℒ)({\mathscr{X}},{\mathscr{L}}) of (X,L)(X,L) numerically effective (briefly nef) if degℒ⁡(C)≥0\deg_{\mathscr{L}}(C)\geq 0 for every closed curve CC in 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} which is proper over K∘{K^{\circ}}. Of course, properness implies that CC is contained in the special fiber 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s}. An algebraic metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LanL^{\rm an} is said to be semipositive if there is a nef algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝒳,ℒ)({\mathscr{X}},{\mathscr{L}}) of (X,L)(X,L) such that ∥∥=∥∥ℒ{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathscr{L}}.

[03BG]
3.2.

The above definition is easily generalized to the analytic setting: Let LL be a line bundle on a paracompact strictly KK-analytic variety VV. A formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) of (V,L)(V,L) is called nef if deg𝔏⁡(C)≥0\deg_{\mathfrak{L}}(C)\geq 0 for any closed curve CC in the special fiber 𝔙s{\mathfrak{V}}_{s} which is proper over K~{\tilde{K}}. A formal metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} on LL is called semipositive if there is a nef formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) of (V,L)(V,L) such that ∥∥=∥∥𝔙{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{V}}.

It will follow from Proposition 3.5 below that we may use any model to test semipositivity of the associated metrics.

[03BH]
Lemma 3.3.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space, LL a line bundle on VV and (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) a formal model of (V,L)(V,L). Let FF be a non-archimedean extension of KK and (𝔙F,𝔏F)({\mathfrak{V}}_{F},{\mathfrak{L}}_{F}) the model of (VF,LF)(V_{F},L_{F}) obtained by base change. Then 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} is nef if and only if 𝔏F{\mathfrak{L}}_{F} is nef.

[03BI]
Proof.

We remark that 𝔙s⊗K~L~≃(𝔙​⊗^K∘​L∘)s{\mathfrak{V}}_{s}\otimes_{\tilde{K}}\tilde{L}\simeq({\mathfrak{V}}\hat{\otimes}_{{K^{\circ}}}L^{\circ})_{s}. Hence the result follows from the fact that a nef line bundle ℒ\mathcal{L} on a proper variety over K~\tilde{K} remains nef after pull back to F~\tilde{F}. This is proven in the projective case in [EFM, Remark 1.3.25] and the proper case follows from Chow’s lemma and the projection formula. ∎

[03BJ]
Lemma 3.4.

Let VV be a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space, LL a line bundle on VV and (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) a formal model of (V,L)(V,L). Let (𝔙red,𝔏red)({\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red},{\mathfrak{L}}_{\rm red}) the model of (Vred,Lred)(V_{\rm red},L_{\rm red}) obtained by putting the reduced structure. Then 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} is nef if and only if 𝔏red{\mathfrak{L}}_{\rm red} is nef.

[03BK]
Proof.

Let 𝔙red{\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red} be the induced reduced structure on 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}}. Since 𝔙red→𝔙{\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red}\to{\mathfrak{V}} is finite (in fact an immersion), we deduce that the induced map (𝔙red)s→𝔙s({\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red})_{s}\to{\mathfrak{V}}_{s} between the special fibers is finite. By projection formula, we conclude that 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} is nef if and only if 𝔏red{\mathfrak{L}}_{\rm red} is nef. ∎

[03BL]
Proposition 3.5.

Let (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) be a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of (V,L)(V,L). Then ∥∥𝔏{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{L}} is a semipositive formal metric if and only if 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} is a nef formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model.

[03BM]
Proof.

By definition if 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} is nef, then ∥∥𝔏\|\ \|_{\mathfrak{L}} is semipositive, so we only have to prove the reverse implication. Hence we assume that ∥∥𝔏{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{L}} is a semipositive formal metric and we have to show that 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} is nef. Using Lemma 3.3, we can replace KK by ℂK{\mathbb{C}}_{K} and hence assume that KK is algebraically closed.

By definition of semipositivity, there is a nef K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝔐{\mathfrak{M}} of LL on some model 𝔚{\mathfrak{W}} of VV with ∥∥𝔏=∥∥𝔐{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{L}}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{M}}. There exists a model 𝔛{\mathfrak{X}} of VV which dominates both 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} and 𝔚{\mathfrak{W}}. Let π:𝔛→𝔙\pi:{\mathfrak{X}}\to{\mathfrak{V}} be the induced morphism. Since the induced morphism on the special fibers πs:𝔛s→𝔙s\pi_{s}\colon{\mathfrak{X}}_{s}\to{\mathfrak{V}}_{s} is proper and surjective, by the projection formula, 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} is nef if and only π∗​𝔏\pi^{*}{\mathfrak{L}} is nef. Hence replacing (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) by (𝔛,π∗​𝔏)({\mathfrak{X}},\pi^{*}{\mathfrak{L}}), we can assume that 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} dominates 𝔚{\mathfrak{W}}.

Let 𝔙red{\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red} be the reduced structure on 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}}. Hence 𝔙red→𝔙{\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red}\to{\mathfrak{V}} is finite. Locally, 𝔙red{\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red} is given by Spf⁡(A){\rm Spf}(A) for some reduced admissible K∘{K^{\circ}}-algebra. Let 𝒜≔A⊗K∘K{\mathscr{A}}\coloneqq A\otimes_{{K^{\circ}}}K. It is a strictly KK-affinoid algebra, and by [BGR84, 6.4.3] A′≔𝒜∘A^{\prime}\coloneqq{\mathscr{A}}^{\circ} is an admissible K∘K^{\circ}-algebra, and moreover A→A′A\to A^{\prime} is finite and induces an isomorphism on the generic fibers. By [BGR84, 7.2.6 Proposition 3], we can glue the morphisms Spf⁡(A′)→Spf⁡(A){\rm Spf}(A^{\prime})\to{\rm Spf}(A) to get a model 𝔙′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} of VredV_{\rm red} such that 𝔙′→𝔙red{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime}\to{\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red} is finite. In particular, we deduce that the induced morphisms 𝔙s′→(𝔙red)s→𝔙s{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime}_{s}\to({\mathfrak{V}}_{\rm red})_{s}\to{\mathfrak{V}}_{s} are proper and surjective, and we conclude from the projection formula that 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} is nef if and only if its pull back 𝔏′{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime} to 𝔙′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} is nef.

By construction, 𝔙′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} is locally of the form Spf⁡(𝒜∘){\rm Spf}({\mathscr{A}}^{\circ}), hence we deduce that 𝔙s′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime}_{s} is locally given by Spec⁡(𝒜~){\rm Spec}(\tilde{{\mathscr{A}}}) which is reduced. Now we use the fact that on an admissible formal scheme with reduced special fibre and with KK algebraically closed, the metric ∥∥𝔏′{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime}} determines the model 𝔏′{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime} up to isomorphism (see [Gub98, Proposition 7.5]). Using that ∥∥𝔐′=∥∥𝔏=∥∥𝔏′{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathfrak{M}}^{\prime}}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{L}}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime}} for the pull-back 𝔐′{\mathfrak{M}}^{\prime} of 𝔐{\mathfrak{M}} to 𝔙′{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime}, we deduce that 𝔐′≅𝔏′{\mathfrak{M}}^{\prime}\cong{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime}. As above, the pull-back 𝔐′{\mathfrak{M}}^{\prime} of 𝔐{\mathfrak{M}} is nef and hence 𝔏′{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime} is nef. ∎

[03BN]
Lemma 3.6.

Let XX be a proper scheme over KK, LL a line bundle on XX and (𝒳,ℒ)({\mathscr{X}},{\mathscr{L}}) a model of (X,L)(X,L) with ∥∥≔∥∥ℒ\|\ \|\coloneqq\|\ \|_{\mathscr{L}}. Let (Xi)i∈I(X_{i})_{i\in I} be the irreducible components of XX equipped with their reduced structures. Then ∥⁣∥\|\ \| is semipositive if and only if for all ii, ∥∥|Xi\|\ \|_{|X_{i}} is semipositive.

[03BP]
Proof.

For each i∈Ii\in I, let 𝒳i{\mathscr{X}}_{i} be the closed subscheme of 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} defined as the topological closure of XiX_{i} in 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} equipped with the reduced structure. We then get for each i∈Ii\in I a cartesian diagram

Xi\textstyle{X_{i}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}X\textstyle{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces X}𝒳i\textstyle{{\mathscr{X}}_{i}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒳\textstyle{\mathscr{X}}

Since the morphism ∐i∈I𝒳i→𝒳\coprod_{i\in I}{\mathscr{X}}_{i}\to{\mathscr{X}} is finite surjective, the projection formula shows that ℒ{\mathscr{L}} is nef on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} if and only if ℒ|𝒳i{\mathscr{L}}_{|{\mathscr{X}}_{i}} is nef on 𝒳i{\mathscr{X}}_{i} for all ii. ∎

[03BQ]
3.7.

Following a suggestion of Tony Yue Yu, we can define semipositivity locally on VV. We say that a piecewise linear metric on LL is semipositive in x∈Vx\in V if there is a compact strictly KK-analytic domain WW in VV which is a neighborhood of xx such that the restriction of ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} to L|WL|_{W} is a semipositive formal metric in the sense of 3.2 (using the equivalence of Proposition 2.8). We say that ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive if it is semipositive in all x∈Vx\in V. We will see in Proposition 3.10 that this fits with the definition in 3.2 assuming that VV is boundaryless.

[03BR]
Definition 3.8.

Let ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} be a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metric on the line bundle LL over VV and let x∈Vx\in V. Then ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is called semipositive in x∈Vx\in V if and only if we may choose a compact strictly KK-analytic domain WW which is a neighbourhood of xx and some integer k≥1k\geq 1 such that ∥∥|W⊗k{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{|W}^{\otimes k} is a semipositive formal metric.

It follows easily from Proposition 3.5 that a piecewise linear metric on LL is semipositive as a piecewise linear metric if and only if it is semipositive as a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metric.

[03BS]
Proposition 3.9.

Let LL be a line bundle on a paracompact strictly KK-analytic space VV. Let x∈Vx\in V and let ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} be a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metric on LL.

  • (a)

    The set of points in VV where ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive is open in VV.

  • (b)

    The tensor product of two piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metrics which are semipositive in xx is again semipositive in xx.

  • (c)

    Let f:V′→Vf:V^{\prime}\to V be a morphism of paracompact strictly KK-analytic spaces. If ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive in xx, then f∗∥∥f^{*}{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive in any point of f−1​(x)f^{-1}(x).

[03BT]
Proof.

Property (a) is obvious from the definitions and the other properties follow from [GK15, Proposition 6.4] by using base change to ℂK{\mathbb{C}}_{K} and Lemma 3.3. ∎

In the following result, we need the notion of the boundary of an analytic space as introduced in [Ber90, §2.5, §3.1]. An analytic space without boundary is called boundaryless. Note that the analytification of a scheme locally of finite type over KK is always boundaryless by [Ber90, Theorem 3.4.1] (boundaryless is called closed there).

[03BU]
Proposition 3.10.

Let LL be a line bundle on the boundaryless paracompact strictly KK-analytic space VV and let ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} be a formal metric on LL. Then ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a semipositive formal metric as globally defined in 3.2 if and only if ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a semipositive piecewise linear metric in every x∈Vx\in V as defined in 3.7.

[03BV]
Proof.

The proof follows mainly the arguments in [GK15, Proposition 6.4]. By Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.4, we may assume that KK is algebraically closed and that VV is reduced. Let (𝔙,𝔏)({\mathfrak{V}},{\mathfrak{L}}) be a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of (V,L)(V,L) with ∥∥=∥∥𝔏{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{L}}. We assume that ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive in every x∈Vx\in V. We choose a closed curve CC in 𝔙s{\mathfrak{V}}_{s} which is proper over K~{\tilde{K}}. We have to show that deg𝔏⁡(C)≥0\deg_{\mathfrak{L}}(C)\geq 0. By surjectivity of the reduction map π:V→𝔙s\pi:V\to{\mathfrak{V}}_{s}, there is x∈Vx\in V such that π⁡(x)\pi(x) is the generic point of CC. Since ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive in xx, there is a compact strictly KK-affinoid neighborhood WW of xx and a nef formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model (𝔚,𝔐)({\mathfrak{W}},{\mathfrak{M}}) of (W,L|W)(W,L|_{W}) such that ∥∥=∥∥𝔐{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathfrak{M}} over WW. Using Proposition 3.5, we may always replace the models 𝔚{\mathfrak{W}} and 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}} by dominating formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-models and the line bundles 𝔐{\mathfrak{M}} and 𝔏{\mathfrak{L}} by their pull-backs. By [BL93b, Corollary 5.4], we may therefore assume that 𝔚{\mathfrak{W}} is a formal open subset of 𝔙{\mathfrak{V}}. Then 𝔏|𝔚{\mathfrak{L}}|_{\mathfrak{W}} is also a formal K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of L|WL|_{W} and hence Proposition 3.5 shows that 𝔏|𝔚{\mathfrak{L}}|_{\mathfrak{W}} is nef.

Since WW is a neighbourhood of xx and since VV is boundaryless, we conclude that the boundary of WW is the topological boundary of WW in VV (see [Ber90, Corollary 2.5.13(ii), Proposition 3.1.3(ii)]). In particular, xx is no boundary point of WW as WW is a neighborhood of xx. Using [CD12, Lemma 6.5.1], such interior points are characterized by the property that the closure of the reduction in 𝔚s{\mathfrak{W}}_{s} is proper over K~{\tilde{K}}. We conclude that the closure of π⁡(x)\pi(x) in 𝔚s{\mathfrak{W}}_{s} is equal to CC. Since 𝔏|𝔚{\mathfrak{L}}|_{\mathfrak{W}} is nef, it follows that deg𝔏⁡(C)≥0\deg_{\mathfrak{L}}(C)\geq 0. ∎

[03BW]
Proposition 3.11.

Let ∥∥1\|\ \|_{1} and ∥∥2\|\ \|_{2} be algebraic metrics of the line bundle LL over the proper scheme XX over KK. Then ∥∥:=min(∥∥1,∥∥2)\|\ \|:=\min(\|\ \|_{1},\|\ \|_{2}) is an algebraic metric on LL. If ∥∥1{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{1} and ∥∥2{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{2} are semipositive in x∈Xanx\in{X^{\rm an}}, then ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive in xx.

[03BX]
Proof.

Since formal and algebraic metrics are the same as noted in Remark 2.5 and hence also the same as piecewise linear metrics, we deduce from Proposition 2.10 (d) that ∥⁣∥\|\ \| is an algebraic metric. If the given metrics are semipositive in xx, then it remains to prove that ∥⁣∥\|\ \| is semipositive in xx. By base change again, we may assume that KK is algebraically closed. By Lemma 3.6, we may assume that XX is a proper variety over KK.

Let us pick models ℒ1{\mathscr{L}}_{1}, ℒ2{\mathscr{L}}_{2} and ℒ{\mathscr{L}} of LL defining the model metrics ∥⁣∥\|\ \|, ∥∥1\|\ \|_{1} and ∥∥2\|\ \|_{2}. There is a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of XX on which ℒ1{\mathscr{L}}_{1}, ℒ2{\mathscr{L}}_{2} and ℒ{\mathscr{L}} are determined. There is an open neighbourhood WW of xx in Xan{X^{\rm an}} such that ∥∥1{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{1} and ∥∥2{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{2} are semipositive in all points of WW. We will show that ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is semipositive in every point of WW. By [GK15, 6.5], it is equivalent to show that degℒ⁡(C)≥0\deg_{\mathscr{L}}(C)\geq 0 for any closed curve CC of 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s} contained in the reduction of WW. Moreover, the same result yields that ℒ1{\mathscr{L}}_{1} and ℒ2{\mathscr{L}}_{2} restrict to nef line bundles on CC. By [GK15, Theorem 4.1], there is a closed curve YY in XX such that CC is an irreducible component of the special fibre of the closure Y¯\overline{Y} in 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}. By restriction, we may assume that X=YX=Y is a curve and hence CC is an irreducible component of 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s}. Let 𝔛{\mathfrak{X}} be the formal completion of 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} and let 𝔏,𝔏1,𝔏2{\mathfrak{L}},{\mathfrak{L}}_{1},{\mathfrak{L}}_{2} be the line bundles on 𝔛{\mathfrak{X}} induced by the pull-backs of ℒ,ℒ1,ℒ2{\mathscr{L}},{\mathscr{L}}_{1},{\mathscr{L}}_{2}.

We have seen in the proof of Proposition 3.5 that we can associate to 𝔛{\mathfrak{X}} a canonical formal model 𝔛′{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime} of Xan{X^{\rm an}} with reduced special fibre and a canonical finite surjective morphism ι:𝔛′→𝔛\iota:{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathfrak{X}}. So there is a closed curve C′C^{\prime} in 𝔛s′{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime}_{s} which maps onto CC in 𝔛s=𝒳s{\mathfrak{X}}_{s}={\mathscr{X}}_{s}. Let 𝔏′,𝔏1′,𝔏2′{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime},{\mathfrak{L}}_{1}^{\prime},{\mathfrak{L}}_{2}^{\prime} be the line bundles on 𝔛′{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime} given by pull-back of 𝔏,𝔏1,𝔏2{\mathfrak{L}},{\mathfrak{L}}_{1},{\mathfrak{L}}_{2}. Note that 𝔏′,𝔏1′,𝔏2′{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime},{\mathfrak{L}}_{1}^{\prime},{\mathfrak{L}}_{2}^{\prime} are formal models of the metrics ∥∥,∥∥1,∥∥2{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|},{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{1},{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{2} on Lan{L^{\rm an}}. By projection formula, the line bundles 𝔏1′,𝔏2′{\mathfrak{L}}_{1}^{\prime},{\mathfrak{L}}_{2}^{\prime} restrict to nef line bundles on C′C^{\prime} and it remains to show that

(3.11.1) deg𝔏′⁡(C′)≥0.\deg_{{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime}}(C^{\prime})\geq 0.

Let ζ\zeta be the generic point of C′C^{\prime}. Then there is a unique point ξ\xi in Xan{X^{\rm an}} with reduction ζ\zeta. This follows from [Ber90, Proposition 2.4.4] since ζ\zeta has a formal affine open neighbourhood in 𝔛′{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime} of the form Spf⁡(𝒜∘){\rm Spf}({\mathscr{A}}^{\circ}) for a strictly KK-affinoid algebra 𝒜{\mathscr{A}}. Using ∥∥=min(∥∥1,∥∥2)\|\ \|=\min(\|\ \|_{1},\|\ \|_{2}), we may assume ∥∥(ξ)=∥∥1(ξ){\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}(\xi)={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{1}(\xi). Since Lan{L^{\rm an}} is algebraic, there is a non-trivial meromorphic section tt of 𝔏′{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime}. Note that the restriction of tt to the generic fibre Lan{L^{\rm an}} induces also a meromorphic section t1t_{1} of 𝔏1′{\mathfrak{L}}_{1}^{\prime}. The meromorphic section t/t1t/t_{1} of 𝔐:=𝔏′⊗(𝔏1′)−1{\mathfrak{M}}:={\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime}\otimes({\mathfrak{L}}_{1}^{\prime})^{-1} restricts to the trivial section 11 of 𝒪Xan{\mathcal{O}}_{X^{\rm an}} and we have

‖t/t1‖𝔐=‖t‖/‖t1‖1=‖t‖/‖t‖1≤1.\|t/t_{1}\|_{\mathfrak{M}}=\|t\|/\|t_{1}\|_{1}=\|t\|/\|t\|_{1}\leq 1.

By [Gub98, Proposition 7.5], we deduce that t/t1t/t_{1} is a global section of 𝔐\mathfrak{M}. The definition of formal metrics and ‖t/t1‖𝔐​(ξ)=‖t‖​(ξ)/‖t‖1​(ξ)=1\|t/t_{1}\|_{\mathfrak{M}}(\xi)=\|t\|(\xi)/\|t\|_{1}(\xi)=1 yield that {y∈Xan∣‖t/t1‖𝔐​(y)≥1}\{y\in{X^{\rm an}}\mid\|t/t_{1}\|_{\mathfrak{M}}(y)\geq 1\} is the generic fibre of a formal open neighbourhood 𝔘{\mathfrak{U}} of ζ\zeta. Hence [Gub98, Proposition 7.5] again shows that t/t1t/t_{1} is a nowhere vanishing regular section of 𝔐\mathfrak{M} on 𝔘{\mathfrak{U}}. We conclude that the restriction of the global section t/t1t/t_{1} to C′C^{\prime} is not identically zero inducing an effective Cartier divisor DD on C′C^{\prime}. This shows

deg𝔐⁡(C′)=degD⁡(C′)≥0.\deg_{\mathfrak{M}}(C^{\prime})=\deg_{D}(C^{\prime})\geq 0.

Using that 𝔏1′{\mathfrak{L}}_{1}^{\prime} is nef on C′C^{\prime} and 𝔏′=𝔐⊗𝔏1′{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime}={\mathfrak{M}}\otimes{\mathfrak{L}}_{1}^{\prime}, we get

deg𝔏′⁡(C′)≥deg𝔏1′⁡(C′)≥0\deg_{{\mathfrak{L}}^{\prime}}(C^{\prime})\geq\deg_{{\mathfrak{L}}_{1}^{\prime}}(C^{\prime})\geq 0

proving (3.11.1). ∎

[03BY]

4. Plurisubharmonic model functions

In this section, KK is an arbitrary non-archimedean field endow with a non-trivial complete absolute value. We will introduce closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms θ\theta on a proper scheme XX over KK and θ\theta-psh model functions following the terminology in [BFJ16].

[03BZ]
4.1.

Let LL be a line bundle on XX. We say that a metric ∥⁣∥\|\ \| on LanL^{\rm an} is a model metric if there is a non-zero d∈ℕd\in{\mathbb{N}} such that ∥∥⊗d{\|\ \|}^{\otimes d} is an algebraic metric on (Lan)⊗d({L^{\rm an}})^{\otimes d}. By Proposition 2.8 and Remark 2.5, ∥⁣∥\|\ \| is a model metric if and only if it is a piecewise ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-linear metric.

[03C0]
4.2.

We say that a function φ:Xan→ℝ\varphi:X^{\rm an}\to{\mathbb{R}} is a model function if there exists d∈ℕ>0d\in{\mathbb{N}}_{>0} and ∥⁣∥\|\ \| an algebraic metric on 𝒪Xan\mathcal{O}_{X^{\rm an}} such that φ=−1d​log⁡‖1‖\varphi=-\frac{1}{d}\log\|1\|. If we can take d=1d=1, we say that φ\varphi is a ℤ{\mathbb{Z}}-model function. The set of model functions on XX is denoted by 𝒟⁡(X)\mathcal{D}(X).

[03C1]
4.3.

Let 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} be an algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of XX. A vertical Cartier divisor on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} is a Cartier divisor DD on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} which is supported on the special fiber 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s}. A vertical Cartier divisor DD on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} determines a model 𝒪⁡(D){\mathcal{O}}(D) of 𝒪X{\mathcal{O}}_{X} hence an associated model function

φD≔−log⁡‖1‖𝒪⁡(D):Xan→ℝ\varphi_{D}\coloneqq-\log\|1\|_{{\mathcal{O}}(D)}:X^{\rm an}\to{\mathbb{R}}

Note that every ℤ{\mathbb{Z}}-model function has this form. Indeed, if ℒ{\mathscr{L}} is an algebraic model of 𝒪X{\mathcal{O}}_{X} with φ=−log∥∥ℒ\varphi=-\log{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathscr{L}}, then the section 11 of 𝒪X{\mathcal{O}}_{X} extends to a meromorphic section ss of ℒ{\mathscr{L}} and the vertical Cartier divisor D:=div⁡(s)D:={\rm div}(s) satisfies φ=φD\varphi=\varphi_{D}.

[03C2]
4.4.

We set Pic​(𝒳)ℝ≔Pic⁡(𝒳)⊗ℤℝ{\rm Pic}({\mathscr{X}})_{\mathbb{R}}\coloneqq{\rm Pic}({\mathscr{X}})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}{\mathbb{R}}. We define the Néron-Severi group as the ℝ{\mathbb{R}}-vector space Pic​(𝒳)ℝ{\rm Pic}({\mathscr{X}})_{\mathbb{R}} modulo the subspace generated by numerically trivial line bundles. We denote this space by N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S), where S:=Spec⁡(K∘)S:={\rm Spec}({K^{\circ}}). The space of closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms on XX is defined as the direct limit

𝒵1,1​(X)≔lim→⁡N1​(𝒳/S)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X)\coloneqq\varinjlim N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S)

where the limit is taken over all algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-models of XX. We say that a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ\theta is determined on some model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} if it is in the image of the map N1​(𝒳/S)→𝒵1,1​(X)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S)\to\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X). The canonical map N1​(𝒳/S)→𝒵1,1​(X)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S)\to\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) induces a map d​dc:𝒟⁡(X)→𝒵1,1​(X)dd^{c}:\mathcal{D}(X)\to\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X).

[03C3]
4.5.

We denote by Pic^​(X)\widehat{\rm Pic}(X) the group of isomorphism classes of line bundles on XX equipped with a model metric. There is a well defined injective map c1:Pic^​(X)→𝒵1,1​(X)c_{1}:\widehat{\rm Pic}(X)\to\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) which sends the class of (L,∥∥ℒ)(L,\|\ \|_{\mathscr{L}}) to the class of ℒ{\mathscr{L}}. We denote its image by c1(L,∥∥ℒ)c_{1}(L,\|\ \|_{\mathscr{L}}) and call it the curvature form of (L,∥∥ℒ)(L,\|\ \|_{\mathscr{L}}).

[03C4]
4.6.

We say that an element of N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) is ample if it is of the form ∑iai​ℒi\sum_{i}a_{i}{\mathscr{L}}_{i} for some real numbers ai>0a_{i}>0 and some ample line bundles ℒi{\mathscr{L}}_{i}. A closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ\theta is called 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}-positive if θ𝒳\theta_{\mathscr{X}} is ample. We say that a model metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} of a line bundle LL is 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}-positive if the same holds for the curvature form c1(L,∥∥)c_{1}(L,{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}). We say that an element θ∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta\in N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) is nef if θ⋅C≥0\theta\cdot C\geq 0 for any closed curve C⊂𝒳sC\subset{\mathscr{X}}_{s}. A closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ\theta is said to be semipositive if it is determined by a nef class θ𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathscr{X}}\in N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) on a model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}.

If θ\theta is a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form, we say that a model function φ\varphi is θ\theta-plurisubharmonic (briefly θ\theta-psh) if θ+d​dc​φ\theta+dd^{c}\varphi is semipositive. If θ\theta is the closed (1,1)(1,1)-form associated with some line bundle ℒ{\mathscr{L}} on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} and if DD is a vertical Cartier divisor on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}, then by definition φD\varphi_{D} is a θ\theta-psh function if and only if ℒ⊗𝒪⁡(D){\mathscr{L}}\otimes{\mathcal{O}}(D) is nef if and only if ∥∥ℒ⊗𝒪⁡(D)\|\ \|_{{\mathscr{L}}\otimes{\mathcal{O}}(D)} is a semipositive metric.

[03C5]
4.7.

Let LL be a line bundle on XX. Let ∥⁣∥\|\ \| be a model metric on LanL^{\rm an} and θ≔c1(L,∥∥)\theta\coloneqq c_{1}(L,\|\ \|). Let ∥∥′\|\ \|^{\prime} be another metric on LanL^{\rm an} and let φ≔−log(∥∥′/∥∥)\varphi\coloneqq-\log(\|\ \|^{\prime}/\|\ \|). Then ∥∥′\|\ \|^{\prime} is a model metric if and only if φ\varphi is a model function. Moreover ∥∥′\|\ \|^{\prime} is a semipositive model metric if and only if φ\varphi is a θ\theta-psh model function.

[03C6]
4.8.

The Néron–Severi group N1​(X)N^{1}(X) of XX is the group Pic⁡(X)⊗ℤℝ{\rm Pic}(X)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}{\mathbb{R}} modulo the subspace generated by the numerically trivial line bundles. For a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ\theta, let {θ}\{\theta\} be the associated de Rham class, given by {θ}=θ𝒳|X∈N1​(X)\{\theta\}=\theta_{\mathscr{X}}|_{X}\in N^{1}(X) for any algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} on which θ\theta is determined by θ𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathscr{X}}\in N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S). If θ\theta is semipositive, then {θ}\{\theta\} is nef.

To see this, we choose any closed curve CC in XX and non-zero ρ\rho in the maximal ideal of the valuation ring K∘{K^{\circ}}. Then using the divisorial intersection theory in [Gub98], we have

v(ρ)degθ𝒳(C)=deg(div(ρ).θ𝒳.C¯)=deg(θ𝒳.div(ρ).C¯)=v(ρ)degθ𝒳(C¯s).v(\rho)\deg_{\theta_{\mathscr{X}}}(C)=\deg({\rm div}(\rho).\theta_{\mathscr{X}}.\overline{C})=\deg(\theta_{\mathscr{X}}.{\rm div}(\rho).\overline{C})=v(\rho)\deg_{\theta_{\mathscr{X}}}(\overline{C}_{s}).

Since θ𝒳\theta_{\mathscr{X}} is nef, the degree of the special fibre C¯s\overline{C}_{s} is non-negative proving the claim.

[03C7]
Lemma 4.9.

Let us assume that KK is algebraically closed. Let φ\varphi be a model function determined by a vertical Cartier divisor DD on the algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of XX. We assume that the special fibre 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s} is reduced. Then φ≥0\varphi\geq 0 if and only if the Cartier divisor DD is effective.

[03C8]
Proof.

The corresponding statement for admissible formal schemes is proven in [GRW14, Proposition A.7] and hence applies to the formal completion 𝒳^\hat{{\mathscr{X}}} of 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} and its Cartier divisor D^\hat{D} given by pull-back of DD. By the formal GAGA-principle proved in this non-noetherian situation by Fujiwara–Kato in [FK13, Theorem I.10.1.2], the Cartier divisor DD is effective if and only D^\hat{D} is an effective Cartier divisor on 𝒳^\hat{{\mathscr{X}}}. Since DD and D^\hat{D} determine the same model function, we get the claim. ∎

[03C9]
Remark 4.10.

If we assume that 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} is normal instead of assuming that 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s} is reduced, then Lemma 4.9 holds for any non-archimedean field KK (see [GS15b, Corollary 2.12]).

We recall the following result from [BFJ16], Corollary. 1.5. For convenience of the reader and to check that no noetherian hypotheses are used, we give here a proof.

[03CA]
Proposition 4.11.

Let LL be an ample line bundle on the projective variety XX over KK and let 𝒳0{\mathscr{X}}_{0} be any K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of XX. Then there is a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of XX dominating 𝒳0{\mathscr{X}}_{0} and an ample line bundle ℒ{\mathscr{L}} on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} which is a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of L⊗mL^{\otimes m} for a suitable m∈ℕm\in{\mathbb{N}}.

[03CB]
Proof.

Every K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of a projective variety XX is dominated by a projective K∘{K^{\circ}}-model [Gub03, Proposition 10.5]. Hence we may assume that 𝒳0{\mathscr{X}}_{0} is projective. There is m1∈ℕm_{1}\in{\mathbb{N}} and a closed immersion of XX into ℙKN{\mathbb{P}}_{K}^{N} such that L⊗m1=𝒪ℙKN​(1)|XL^{\otimes m_{1}}={\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{K}^{N}}(1)|_{X}. Then the closure of XX in ℙK∘N{\mathbb{P}}_{K^{\circ}}^{N} is a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳1{\mathscr{X}}_{1} of XX which has an ample line bundle ℒ1{\mathscr{L}}_{1} such that ℒ1|X=L⊗m1{\mathscr{L}}_{1}|_{X}=L^{\otimes m_{1}}. Then the closure of the diagonal in 𝒳0×K∘𝒳1{\mathscr{X}}_{0}\times_{K^{\circ}}{\mathscr{X}}_{1} is a projective K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of XX and the canonical projection p1:𝒳→𝒳1p_{1}:{\mathscr{X}}\to{\mathscr{X}}_{1} is a projective morphism, hence there is a closed immersion of 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} into a projective space ℙ𝒳1k{\mathbb{P}}_{{\mathscr{X}}_{1}}^{k} over 𝒳1{\mathscr{X}}_{1}. Let ℰ{\mathscr{E}} be the restriction of 𝒪ℙ𝒳1k​(1){\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{{\mathscr{X}}_{1}}^{k}}(1) to 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}. Since ℰ{\mathscr{E}} is relatively ample with respect to p1p_{1} and since ℒ1{\mathscr{L}}_{1} is an ample line bundle on 𝒳1{\mathscr{X}}_{1}, there is m2∈ℕm_{2}\in{\mathbb{N}} such that ℒ:=p1∗​(ℒ1)⊗m2⊗ℰ{\mathscr{L}}:=p_{1}^{*}({\mathscr{L}}_{1})^{\otimes m_{2}}\otimes{\mathscr{E}} is ample on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}. Then ℒ{\mathscr{L}} is a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of L⊗mL^{\otimes m} for m:=m1​m2m:=m_{1}m_{2}. ∎

[03CC]
Proposition 4.12.

Let ω\omega be 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}-positive and let θ\theta be any closed (1,1)(1,1)-form determined by 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}. Then ω+ε​θ\omega+{\varepsilon}\theta is 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}-positive for ε∈ℝ{\varepsilon}\in{\mathbb{R}} sufficiently close to 00.

[03CD]
Proof.

Since Spec⁡(K∘){\rm Spec}({K^{\circ}}) is affine, ampleness is the same as relatively ample. It remains to check that the restriction of ω+ε​θ\omega+{\varepsilon}\theta to the special fibre is ample (see [Gro66, 9.6.4 and 9.6.5]). The ample cone on the special fiber is the interior of the nef cone. This proves immediately the claim. ∎

[03CE]
Proposition 4.13.

Let θ\theta be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form with ample de Rham class {θ}∈N1​(X)\{\theta\}\in N^{1}(X) and let 𝒳0{\mathscr{X}}_{0} be any K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of XX. Then there is a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of XX dominating 𝒳0{\mathscr{X}}_{0} such that θ\theta is determined on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} and a model function φ\varphi such that θ+d​dc​φ\theta+dd^{c}\varphi is 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}-positive. If θ\theta is semipositive and ε>0{\varepsilon}>0, then we may find such a model function with −ε≤φ≤0-{\varepsilon}\leq\varphi\leq 0.

[03CF]
Proof.

We note first that restriction gives a canonical injective homomorphism N1​(𝒳/S)→N1​(𝒳s)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S)\to N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}_{s}) and the ample part of N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) is the preimage of the ample part of N1​(𝒳s)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}_{s}) (see the proof of Proposition 4.12). By assumption, θ\theta can be represented by c1​(ℒ)=∑iλi​c1​(ℒi)c_{1}({\mathscr{L}})=\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}c_{1}({\mathscr{L}}_{i}) with line bundles ℒi{\mathscr{L}}_{i} and λi∈ℝ\lambda_{i}\in{\mathbb{R}}. We recall that the isomorphism classes of K∘{K^{\circ}}-models of XX form a directed set and that any K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of the projective variety XX is dominated by a projective K∘{K^{\circ}}-model. So we may assume that all ℒi{\mathscr{L}}_{i} live on a common projective model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}. We approximate the real numbers λi\lambda_{i} by sufficiently close rational numbers λi′\lambda_{i}^{\prime}. Then the restriction L′L^{\prime} of ℒ′:=⨂iℒi′⊗λi′{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}:=\bigotimes_{i}{\mathscr{L}}_{i}^{\prime\otimes\lambda_{i}^{\prime}} to the generic fibre XX is a ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-line bundle which is sufficiently close to LL in N1​(X)N^{1}(X). Since the ample cone in N1​(X)N^{1}(X) is open, we may assume that L′L^{\prime} is ample as well. By Proposition 4.11, we may assume that L′L^{\prime} admits an ample extension ℋ′∈Pic​(𝒳)ℚ{\mathscr{H}}^{\prime}\in{\rm Pic}({\mathscr{X}})_{\mathbb{Q}}. Let φ′\varphi^{\prime} be the model function corresponding to ℋ′⊗(ℒ′)−1{\mathscr{H}}^{\prime}\otimes({\mathscr{L}}^{\prime})^{-1}. Let now θ′\theta^{\prime} be the closed (1,1)(1,1)-form on XX represented by ℒ′{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}. Since d​dc​φ′+θ′dd^{c}\varphi^{\prime}+\theta^{\prime} is represented by c1​(ℋ′)c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime}), we conclude that d​dc​φ′+θ′dd^{c}\varphi^{\prime}+\theta^{\prime} is 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}-positive. Since the ample cone of 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s} is open and since the restrictions of ℒ,ℒ′{\mathscr{L}},{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime} to the special fibre 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s} are sufficiently close, it follows from our remark at the beginning that c1​(ℋ′)+c1​(ℒ)−c1​(ℒ′)c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})+c_{1}({\mathscr{L}})-c_{1}({\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}) is ℝ{\mathbb{R}}-ample. Since d​dc​φ′+θdd^{c}\varphi^{\prime}+\theta is represented by c1​(ℋ′)+c1​(ℒ)−c1​(ℒ′)c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})+c_{1}({\mathscr{L}})-c_{1}({\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}), we see that d​dc​φ′+θdd^{c}\varphi^{\prime}+\theta is 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}-positive.

Now let θ\theta be semipositive. Since a function in 𝒟⁡(X){\mathscr{D}}(X) is continuous on Xan{X^{\rm an}}, it is bounded and hence c:=supXanφc:=\sup_{X^{\rm an}}\varphi is bounded. We may replace φ′\varphi^{\prime} by φ′−c\varphi^{\prime}-c without changing d​dc​φ′dd^{c}\varphi^{\prime}. Since cc is in the value group of the algebraic closure of KK, this is still a model function and hence we may assume φ′≤0\varphi^{\prime}\leq 0. Since the sum of a nef and an ample ℝ{\mathbb{R}}-line bundle remains ℝ{\mathbb{R}}-ample (as we can check that on the special fibre, see the proof of Proposition 4.12), we know that

θ+d​dc​(ε​φ′)=ε⁡(θ+d​dc​φ′)+(1−ε)​θ\theta+dd^{c}({\varepsilon}\varphi^{\prime})={\varepsilon}(\theta+dd^{c}\varphi^{\prime})+(1-{\varepsilon})\theta

is also 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}-positive for all 0<ε≤10<{\varepsilon}\leq 1. Using a rational ε{\varepsilon} sufficiently close to 00, we get the claim. ∎

[03CG]

5. Semipositivity and pointwise convergence

In this section, we assume that KK is a complete discretely valued field. Our goal is to generalize [BFJ16], Theorem 5.11 to a line bundle LL over a proper variety XX. This is an important improvement since in [BFJ16] the result holds only in residue characteristic 00 (due to a use of the theory of multiplier ideals).

In terms of metrics, this means that pointwise convergence of semipositive model metrics on LanL^{\rm an} to a model metric implies that the limit is a semipositive model metric. By Chow’s lemma, we can immediately reduce to the case of projective varieties.

[03CH]
5.1.

We follow [BFJ16, Definition 1.1] and say that a regular scheme 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of finite type over K∘K^{\circ} is SNC if its special fiber has simple normal crossing support and if any intersection of irreducible components of the special fiber is irreducible. As noted in the remark after [BFJ16, Definition 1.1], if 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} is strictly semi-stable [dJ96, Definition 2.16], 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} might not satisfy the second condition, however, a vertical blowing-up of 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} along non-connected components of such intersections will be SNC.

We will first proof an analogue of [BFJ16], Lemma 5.12. Recall that we denote by XdivX^{\rm div} the set of divisorial points (see 2.2) of the analytification Xan{X^{\rm an}}.

[03CI]
Proposition 5.2.

Let XX be a projective variety over KK with an ample line bundle LL. We assume that XX has an SNC model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} over K∘K^{\circ} with a line bundle ℒ{\mathscr{L}} extending LL. Let ∥∥=∥∥ℒ{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}={\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathscr{L}} be the corresponding model metric on LanL^{\rm an} which is assumed to be the pointwise limit over XdivX^{\rm div} of semipositive model metrics on LanL^{\rm an}. Then ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a semipositive model metric.

The proof of Proposition 5.2 follows immediately from Lemma 5.4 and Lemma 5.5 below. Recall that the base-ideal 𝔞m\mathfrak{a}_{m} of ℒ⊗m{\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes m} is defined as the image of the canonical map

H0​(𝒳,ℒ⊗m)⊗ℒ⊗(−m)→𝒪𝒳.H^{0}({\mathscr{X}},{\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes m})\otimes{\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes(-m)}\rightarrow{\mathcal{O}}_{\mathscr{X}}.

Since LL is ample on XX, 𝔞m\mathfrak{a}_{m} is a vertical coherent ideal sheaf for mm sufficiently large. The following lemma is similar to the first step in the proof of [BFJ16], Lemma 5.12.

[03CJ]
Definition 5.3.

Let 𝔞\mathfrak{a} be a vertical coherent fractional ideal on the algebraic K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of the proper scheme XX over KK. We define the function

log|𝔞|(x)≔max⁡{log⁡|f⁡(x)||f∈𝔞π⁡(x)}\log|\mathfrak{a}|(x)\coloneqq\max\{\log|f(x)|\ \big|\ f\in\mathfrak{a}_{\pi(x)}\}

where π:Xan→𝒳s\pi:{X^{\rm an}}\to{\mathscr{X}}_{s} is the reduction map.

We now recall a result from [BFJ16].

[03CK]
Lemma 5.4 (Step 1 of Lemma 5.12 of [BFJ16]).

Under the same hypothesis as in Proposition 5.2, the model functions 1m​log⁡|𝔞m|\frac{1}{m}{\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|} converge pointwise to 00 on XdivX^{\rm div}.

The following result is similar to step 2 in the proof of [BFJ1], Lemma 5.12. Note that we need here another argument as multiplier ideals are used in [BFJ16], which does not work in residue characteristic p>0p>0. Let us recall that a line bundle LL on a scheme is called semiample if L⊗mL^{\otimes m} is globally generated for some m∈ℕ>0m\in{\mathbb{N}}_{>0}.

[03CL]
Lemma 5.5.

Let LL be a semiample line bundle on the normal projective variety XX over KK. Assume that LL has a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model ℒ{\mathscr{L}} on the K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} of XX. Let 𝔞m\mathfrak{a}_{m} be the base-ideal of ℒ⊗m{\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes m}. If 1m​log⁡|𝔞m|\frac{1}{m}{\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|} converges pointwise to 00 on XdivX^{\rm div}, then ∥∥ℒ{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{\mathscr{L}} is semipositive.

[03CM]
Proof.

Since any K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of XX is dominated by a projective K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of XX [Gub03, Proposition 10.5], we may assume that 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} is projective. Let n≔dim(X)n\coloneqq\dim(X). Hence 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} is irreducible of dimension n+1n+1. We choose a closed curve YY in the special fibre 𝒳s{\mathscr{X}}_{s}. Then we have to show that degℒ⁡(Y)≥0\deg_{\mathscr{L}}(Y)\geq 0. We follow the strategy of [Goo69] to use the blow up π:𝒳′→𝒳\pi:{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime}\rightarrow{\mathscr{X}} in YY (as suggested in [BFJ16, Remark 5.13]). Then E:=π−1​(Y)E:=\pi^{-1}(Y) is an effective Cartier divisor on 𝒳′{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime} which is vertical. Moreover, 𝒳′{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime} is projective and hence we have a very ample invertible sheaf ℋ′{\mathscr{H}}^{\prime} on 𝒳′{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime}. Since EE is an nn-dimensional projective variety mapping onto YY, it follows from using generic hyperplane sections, the fibre theorem [Har77, Exercise II.3.22] and the fact that 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} is irreducible of dimension n+1n+1 that π∗((ℋ′)n−1.E)\pi_{*}(({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E) is a positive multiple of YY. By projection formula, it is enough to show

(5.5.1) degℒ′((ℋ′)n−1.E)≥0\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}}(({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E)\geq 0

for ℒ′:=π∗​(ℒ){\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}:=\pi^{*}({\mathscr{L}}). We may assume that Y⊂V⁡(𝔞m)Y\subset V(\mathfrak{a}_{m}) for every mm as otherwise there is a global section sms_{m} of ℒ⊗m{\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes m} such that sm|Y≠0s_{m}|_{Y}\neq 0 and hence

degℒ⁡(Y)=deg⁡(div⁡(sm|Y))≥0\deg_{\mathscr{L}}(Y)=\deg({\rm div}(s_{m}|_{Y}))\geq 0

would make the claim obvious. The crucial new idea is now to consider the family of blow ups ψm:𝒳m→𝒳′\psi_{m}:{\mathscr{X}}_{m}\rightarrow{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime} of 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m} in the closed subscheme π−1​(V⁡(𝔞m))\pi^{-1}(V(\mathfrak{a}_{m})) for all integers m≥1m\geq 1. Replacing 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m} by its normalization, we can assume that 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m} is normal. Let πm=π∘ψm\pi_{m}=\pi\circ\psi_{m}. We set Dm≔πm−1​(𝔞m)D_{m}\coloneqq\pi_{m}^{-1}(\mathfrak{a}_{m}). It is an effective Cartier divisor on 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m}, and we denote by s−Dms_{-D_{m}} the canonical meromorphic section of 𝒪⁡(−Dm)\mathcal{O}(-D_{m}). Note that all these models have generic fibre XX. We conclude that Em:=πm−1​(Y)=ψm−1​(E)E_{m}:=\pi_{m}^{-1}(Y)=\psi_{m}^{-1}(E) is an effective Cartier divisor. Note that ℋm:=ψm∗​(ℋ′){\mathscr{H}}_{m}:=\psi_{m}^{*}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime}) is generated by global sections. We conclude from refined intersection theory that

(5.5.2) cl⁡(Z)=c1​(ℋm)n−1.cyc⁡(Em)∈CH1​(Em){\rm cl}(Z)=c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}_{m})^{n-1}.{\rm cyc}(E_{m})\in{\rm CH}_{1}(E_{m})

for an effective 11-dimensional cycle ZZ of 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m} with support over YY. We consider the invertible sheaf ℒm:=πm∗(ℒ⊗m)≅ψm∗(ℒ′⊗m){\mathscr{L}}_{m}:=\pi_{m}^{*}({\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes m})\cong\psi_{m}^{*}({\mathscr{L}}^{\prime\otimes m}) of 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m}. We claim that

(5.5.3) degℒm⁡(Z)≥deg𝒪⁡(Dm)⁡(Z).\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}_{m}}(Z)\geq\deg_{{\mathcal{O}}(D_{m})}(Z).

To prove this, let ZmZ_{m} be any irreducible component of ZZ. We choose ζm∈Zm\zeta_{m}\in Z_{m} and let ζ:=πm​(ζm)\zeta:=\pi_{m}(\zeta_{m}). We note first that the stalk of ℒm​(−Dm){\mathscr{L}}_{m}(-D_{m}) at ζm\zeta_{m} is generated by global sections. Indeed, it follows from the definitions that there is a global section sms_{m} of ℒ⊗m{\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes m} and an invertible section ℓm\ell_{m} of ℒ⊗m{\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes m} at ζ\zeta such that πm∗​(sm/ℓm)\pi_{m}^{*}(s_{m}/\ell_{m}) is an equation of the Cartier divisor DmD_{m} at ζm\zeta_{m}. It follows from the definition of the base ideal 𝔞m\mathfrak{a}_{m} that tm:=πm∗​(sm)⊗s−Dmt_{m}:=\pi_{m}^{*}(s_{m})\otimes s_{-D_{m}} is a global section of ℒm​(−Dm){\mathscr{L}}_{m}(-D_{m}) and the choice of sms_{m} yields that tmt_{m} generates the stalk at ζm\zeta_{m}. We deduce that the restriction of tmt_{m} to ZmZ_{m} is a global section which is not identically zero and hence

degℒm⁡(Zm)=deg𝒪⁡(Dm)⁡(Zm)+deg⁡(div⁡(tm|Zm))≥deg𝒪⁡(Dm)⁡(Zm)\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}_{m}}(Z_{m})=\deg_{{\mathcal{O}}(D_{m})}(Z_{m})+\deg({\rm div}(t_{m}|_{Z_{m}}))\geq\deg_{{\mathcal{O}}(D_{m})}(Z_{m})

proving (5.5.3). By projection formula and (5.5.2), we have

mdegℒ′(c1(ℋ′)n−1.E)=degℒm(Z)m\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}}(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E)=\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}_{m}}(Z)

and hence (5.5.3) leads to

mdegℒ′(c1(ℋ′)n−1.E)≥deg𝒪⁡(Dm)(Z)=deg𝒪⁡(Dm)(c1(ℋm)n−1.cyc(Em)).m\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}}(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E)\geq\deg_{{\mathcal{O}}(D_{m})}(Z)=\deg_{{\mathcal{O}}(D_{m})}(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}_{m})^{n-1}.{\rm cyc}(E_{m})).

Commutativity of intersection product shows

(5.5.4) mdegℒ′(c1(ℋ′)n−1.E)≥deg(c1(ℋm)n−1.Em.cyc(Dm)).m\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}}(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E)\geq\deg(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}_{m})^{n-1}.E_{m}.{\rm cyc}(D_{m})).

The intersection product can be computed on the model 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m} over the valuation ring K∘{K^{\circ}} using the intersection theory with Cartier divisors from [Gub98] (see also [GS15b, Section 2] for the normal case). We have

cyc⁡(Dm)=∑WμW​W,{\rm cyc}(D_{m})=\sum_{W}\mu_{W}W,

where WW ranges over all irreducible components of the special fibre of 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m}. Using [BPS14, Proposition 1.3.3] there is a unique point ξW\xi_{W} of the analytification Xan{X^{\rm an}} of the generic fibre of 𝒳m{\mathscr{X}}_{m} with reduction equal to the generic point of WW (see [Ber90, Proposition 2.4.4] and [Gub07b, 2.5, 2.6]) and the multiplicities μW\mu_{W} are given by

μW=−log⁡‖sDm​(ξW)‖.\mu_{W}=-\log\|s_{D_{m}}(\xi_{W})\|.

We insert this in (5.5.4) and use again projection formula to get

(5.5.5) mdegℒ′(c1(ℋ′)n−1.E)≥∑V∑W:ψm​(W)=VμW[W:V]deg(c1(ℋ′)n−1.E.V),m\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}}(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E)\geq\sum_{V}\sum_{W:\psi_{m}(W)=V}\mu_{W}[W:V]\deg(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E.V),

where VV ranges over all irreducible components of (𝒳′)s({\mathscr{X}}^{\prime})_{s} and WW ranges over the irreducible components of (𝒳m)s({\mathscr{X}}_{m})_{s} with ψm​(W)=V\psi_{m}(W)=V. Here, [W:V][W:V] is the degree of the induced map W→VW\rightarrow V. Note that ψm​(ξW)\psi_{m}(\xi_{W}) is a divisorial point of Xan{X^{\rm an}} which reduces to the generic point of VV in the model 𝒳′{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime}. We conclude that there are only finitely many possibilities for ψm​(ξW)\psi_{m}(\xi_{W}) independently of the choice of mm.

We choose ε>0{\varepsilon}>0 small. By the above finiteness, there is a sufficiently large mm such that

0≤−1m​log⁡|𝔞m|​(ψm​(ξW))≤ε0\leq-\frac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|(\psi_{m}(\xi_{W}))\leq{\varepsilon}

for all WW as above. We conclude that

0≤μW=−log⁡‖sDm​(ξW)‖=−log⁡|𝔞m|​(ξV)≤m​ε0\leq\mu_{W}=-\log\|s_{D_{m}}(\xi_{W})\|=-\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|(\xi_{V})\leq m{\varepsilon}

for all VV and WW as above with ψm​(W)=V\psi_{m}(W)=V. Let −R-R be the minimum of the finitely many intersection numbers deg((ℋ′)n−1.E.V)\deg(({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E.V) and 00. Then (5.5.5) leads to

degℒ′(c1(ℋ′)n−1.E)≥−Rε∑V∑W:ψm​(W)=V[W:V].\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}}(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E)\geq-R{\varepsilon}\sum_{V}\sum_{W:\psi_{m}(W)=V}[W:V].

By projection formula for ψm\psi_{m} applied to the Cartier divisor div⁡(ρ){\rm div}(\rho) on 𝒳′{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime} for any non-zero ρ\rho in the maximal ideal of RR,

we deduce easily that

∑W:ψm​(W)=VmW[W:V]=mV\sum_{W:\psi_{m}(W)=V}m_{W}[W:V]=m_{V}

for the multiplicity mVm_{V} (resp. mWm_{W}) of (𝒳′)s({\mathscr{X}}^{\prime})_{s} (resp. (𝒳m)s({\mathscr{X}}_{m})_{s}) in VV (resp. WW). We conclude that

degℒ′(c1(ℋ′)n−1.E)≥−Rε∑VmV.\deg_{{\mathscr{L}}^{\prime}}(c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}^{\prime})^{n-1}.E)\geq-R{\varepsilon}\sum_{V}m_{V}.

The numbers RR and mVm_{V} are independent of ε{\varepsilon}. This proves (5.5.1) and hence the claim. ∎

In the following, we use the notation introduced in §4. Recall that 𝒟⁡(X)\mathcal{D}(X) denotes the space of model functions on XX.

[03CN]
Theorem 5.6.

Let XX be a proper scheme over KK and let θ\theta be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form on XX. Then the set of θ\theta-psh model functions is closed in 𝒟⁡(X)\mathcal{D}(X) with respect to pointwise convergence on Xan{X^{\rm an}}.

This is a generalization of Theorem 5.11 in [BFJ16] as we allow KK to be a discretely valued complete field of arbitrary residue characteristic and also because we allow any proper scheme XX. Note however that in [BFJ16] it is enough to assume pointwise convergence only on XdivX^{\rm div}. We need pointwise convergence in more points as divisorial points are not necessarily mapped to divisorial points by an alteration. Resolution of singularities would solve this small issue.

[03CP]
Proof.

Since we may check semipositivity after a base extension (see Lemma 3.3), we may replace KK by a finite field extension of KK. Then, using Lemma 3.6, we may assume that XX is a variety.

Let φ\varphi be a model function on XX which is the pointwise limit of θ\theta-psh functions. Replacing θ\theta by θ+d​dc​φ\theta+dd^{c}\varphi, we may assume that φ=0\varphi=0. Then the existence of a θ\theta-psh function yields that θ\theta is semipositive and hence {θ}\{\theta\} is nef (see 4.8). Let 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} be a K∘{K^{\circ}}-model of XX such that θ\theta is determined on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}}. Then the restriction of θ𝒳\theta_{\mathscr{X}} to XX is nef.

We may replace 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} by a generically finite covering 𝒳′{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime} for any K∘{K^{\circ}}-model 𝒳′{\mathscr{X}}^{\prime} with generic fibre X′X^{\prime}. This does not change convergence of metrics and semipositivity. It is here, where we use that pointwise convergence holds on Xan{X^{\rm an}}. By [dJ96, Theorem 4.5], up to replacing KK by a finite field extension, we may assume that 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} is SNC (see 5.1). The proof of Proposition 4.13 shows that N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) is a finite dimensional ℝ{\mathbb{R}}-vector space as we can see it as a subspace of N1​(𝒳s)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}_{s}). We have also seen that the ample cone in N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) is the intersection of N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) with the ample cone in N1​(𝒳s)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}_{s}) and hence it is open in N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S). We conclude that there are ℋ1,…,ℋn{\mathscr{H}}_{1},\dots,{\mathscr{H}}_{n} ample line bundles on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} such that their numerical classes αj\alpha_{j} form a basis of N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S). Then there are λj∈ℝ\lambda_{j}\in{\mathbb{R}} such that

c1​(ℒ):=∑jλj​c1​(ℋj)∈Pic​(𝒳)ℝc_{1}({\mathscr{L}}):=\sum_{j}\lambda_{j}c_{1}({\mathscr{H}}_{j})\in{\rm Pic}({\mathscr{X}})_{\mathbb{R}}

represents θ\theta. Let εj{\varepsilon}_{j} be small positive numbers such that the numbers λj+εj\lambda_{j}+{\varepsilon}_{j} are rational. We consider the ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-line bundle

ℒε:=⨂jℋj⊗(λj+εj){\mathscr{L}}_{\varepsilon}:=\bigotimes_{j}{\mathscr{H}}_{j}^{\otimes(\lambda_{j}+{\varepsilon}_{j})}

on 𝒳{\mathscr{X}} and let Lε:=ℒεL_{\varepsilon}:={\mathscr{L}}_{\varepsilon}. Since {θ}\{\theta\} is nef and εj>0{\varepsilon}_{j}>0, it follows that LεL_{\varepsilon} is ample. For any model function ψ\psi on XX, we have

c1(Lε,e−ψ∥∥ℒε)=ddcψ+θ+∑jεjαj.c_{1}(L_{\varepsilon},e^{-\psi}{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathscr{L}}_{\varepsilon}})=dd^{c}\psi+\theta+\sum_{j}{\varepsilon}_{j}\alpha_{j}.

We conclude that a θ\theta-psh model function ψ\psi yields a semipositive model metric e−ψ∥∥ℒεe^{-\psi}{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathscr{L}}_{\varepsilon}}. Since 00 is the pointwise limit of θ\theta-psh model functions ψ\psi, we deduce that ∥∥ℒε{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathscr{L}}_{\varepsilon}} is the pointwise limit of semipositive model metrics on LεL_{\varepsilon}. It follows from Proposition 5.2 that ∥∥ℒε{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|}_{{\mathscr{L}}_{\varepsilon}} is semipositive. This means that ℒε{\mathscr{L}}_{\varepsilon} is nef.

By definition of nef and using N1​(𝒳/S)⊂N1​(𝒳s)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S)\subset N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}_{s}), we see that the cone in N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) of nef classes is the intersection of N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S) with the nef cone in N1​(𝒳s)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}_{s}). In particular, the cone of nef classes is closed in N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}({\mathscr{X}}/S). Using ε=(ε1,…,εn)→0{\varepsilon}=({\varepsilon}_{1},\dots,{\varepsilon}_{n})\to 0, we deduce that ℒ{\mathscr{L}} is nef. Since ℒ{\mathscr{L}} represents θ\theta, we conclude that φ=0\varphi=0 is θ\theta-psh. ∎

[03CQ]
Corollary 5.7.

Let XX be a proper scheme over KK with a line bundle LL. We assume that the model metric ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a pointwise limit of semipositive model metrics on LanL^{\rm an}. Then ∥⁣∥{\|\hskip 4.30554pt\|} is a semipositive model metric.

[03CR]
Proof.

Using 4.7, this is a special case of Theorem 5.6. ∎

References

  • [Ber90] Vladimir G. Berkovich. Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-Archimedean fields, volume 33 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990.
  • [Ber93] Vladimir G. Berkovich. Étale cohomology for non-Archimedean analytic spaces. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (78):5–161 (1994), 1993.
  • [Bos14] Siegfried Bosch. Lectures on formal and rigid geometry, volume 2105 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2014.
  • [BGR84] S. Bosch, U. Güntzer, and R. Remmert. Non-Archimedean analysis, volume 261 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984. A systematic approach to rigid analytic geometry.
  • [BL93a] Siegfried Bosch and Werner Lütkebohmert. Formal and rigid geometry. I. Rigid spaces. Math. Ann., 295(2):291–317, 1993.
  • [BL93b] Siegfried Bosch and Werner Lütkebohmert. Formal and rigid geometry. II. Flattening techniques. Math. Ann., 296(3):403–429, 1993.
  • [BFJ15] Sébastien Boucksom, Charles Favre, and Mattias Jonsson. Solution to a non-Archimedean Monge-Ampère equation. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 28(3):617–667, 2015.
  • [BFJ16] Sébastien Boucksom, Charles Favre, and Mattias Jonsson. Singular semipositive metrics in non-Archimedean geometry. J. Algebraic Geom., 25(1):77–139, 2016.
  • [Bou71] N. Bourbaki. Éléments de mathématique. Topologie générale. Chapitres 1 à 4. Hermann, Paris, 1971.
  • [BGJKM] J. I. Burgos Gil, W. Gubler, P. Jell, K. Kuennemann, and F. Martin. Differentiability of non-archimedean volumes and non-archimedean Monge-Ampère equations (with an appendix by Robert Lazarsfeld). arXiv:1608.01919, 2016.
  • [BMPS16] José Ignacio Burgos Gil, Atsushi Moriwaki, Patrice Philippon, and Martín Sombra. Arithmetic positivity on toric varieties. J. Algebraic Geom., 25(2):201–272, 2016.
  • [BPRS15] J. I. Burgos Gil, P. Philippon, J. Rivera-Letelier, and M. Sombra. The distribution of Galois orbits of points of small height in toric varieties. arXiv:1509.01011, 2015.
  • [BPS14] José Ignacio Burgos Gil, Patrice Philippon, and Martín Sombra. Arithmetic geometry of toric varieties. Metrics, measures and heights. Astérisque, (360):vi+222, 2014.
  • [BPS15] José Ignacio Burgos Gil, Patrice Philippon, and Martín Sombra. Successive minima of toric height functions. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 65(5):2145–2197, 2015.
  • [BPS16] José Ignacio Burgos Gil, Patrice Philippon, and Martín Sombra. Height of varieties over finitely generated fields. Kyoto J. Math., 56(1):13–32, 2016.
  • [Cha06] Antoine Chambert-Loir. Mesures et équidistribution sur les espaces de Berkovich. J. Reine Angew. Math., 595:215–235, 2006.
  • [CD12] A. Chambert-Loir and A. Ducros. Formes différentielles réelles et courants sur les espaces de Berkovich. arXiv:1204.6277, 2012.
  • [CT09] Antoine Chambert-Loir and Amaury Thuillier. Mesures de Mahler et équidistribution logarithmique. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 59(3):977–1014, 2009.
  • [EFM] L. Ein,T. de Fernex and M. Mustata. Vanishing theorems and singularities in birational geometry. http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~ein/DFEM.pdf.
  • [Fab09] X. W. C. Faber. Equidistribution of dynamically small subvarieties over the function field of a curve. Acta Arith., 137(4):345–389, 2009.
  • [FK13] Kazuhiro Fujiwara and Fumiharu Kato. Foundations of rigid geometry I. arXiv:1308.4734v3, 2013.
  • [Goo69] Jacob Eli Goodman. Affine open subsets of algebraic varieties and ample divisors. Ann. of Math. (2), 89:160–183, 1969.
  • [Gro66] A. Grothendieck. Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas. III. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (28):255, 1966.
  • [Gub98] Walter Gubler. Local heights of subvarieties over non-Archimedean fields. J. Reine Angew. Math., 498:61–113, 1998.
  • [Gub03] Walter Gubler. Local and canonical heights of subvarieties. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), 2(4):711–760, 2003.
  • [Gub07a] Walter Gubler. The Bogomolov conjecture for totally degenerate abelian varieties. Invent. Math., 169(2):377–400, 2007.
  • [Gub07b] Walter Gubler. Tropical varieties for non-Archimedean analytic spaces. Invent. Math., 169(2):321–376, 2007.
  • [Gub08] Walter Gubler. Equidistribution over function fields. Manuscripta Math., 127(4):485–510, 2008.
  • [GK14] W. Gubler and K. Künnemann. A tropical approach to non-archimedean Arakelov theory. arXiv:1406.7637, 2014.
  • [GK15] W. Gubler and K. Künnemann. Positivity properties of metrics and delta-forms. arXiv:1509.09079, 2015.
  • [GRW14] W. Gubler, J. Rabinoff, and A. Werner. Skeletons and tropicalizations. arXiv:1404.7044, 2014.
  • [GRW15] W. Gubler, J. Rabinoff, and A. Werner. Tropical Skeletons. arXiv:1508.01179, 2015.
  • [GS15b] Walter Gubler and Alejandro Soto. Classification of normal toric varieties over a valuation ring of rank one. Doc. Math., 20:171–198, 2015.
  • [Har77] Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52.
  • [dJ96] A. J. de Jong. Smoothness, semi-stability and alterations. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (83):51–93, 1996.
  • [KRZ15] E. Katz, J. Rabinoff, and D. Zureick-Brown. Uniform bounds for the number of rational points on curves of small Mordell–Weil rank. arXiv:1504.00694, 2015.
  • [Thu05] Amaury Thuillier. Théorie du potentiel sur les courbes en géométrie analytique non-archimédienne. Applications à la théorie d’Arakelov. PhD thesis, Université de Rennes I, 2005.
  • [Voj07] P. Vojta. Nagata’s embedding theorem. arXiv:0706.1907, 2007.
  • [Yam13] Kazuhiko Yamaki. Geometric Bogomolov conjecture for abelian varieties and some results for those with some degeneration (with an appendix by Walter Gubler: the minimal dimension of a canonical measure). Manuscripta Math., 142(3-4):273–306, 2013.
  • [Yam16] Kazuhiko Yamaki. Strict supports of canonical measures and applications to the geometric Bogomolov conjecture. Compos. Math., 152(5):997–1040, 2016.
  • [Yua08] Xinyi Yuan. Big line bundles over arithmetic varieties. Invent. Math., 173(3):603–649, 2008.
  • [YZ16] Xinyi Yuan and Shou-Wu Zhang. The arithmetic Hodge index theorem for adelic line bundles. Math. Ann., 2016. doi:10.1007/s00208-016-1414-1.
  • [Zha93] Shouwu Zhang. Admissible pairing on a curve. Invent. Math., 112(1):171–193, 1993.
  • [Zha95] Shouwu Zhang. Small points and adelic metrics. J. Algebraic Geom., 4(2):281–300, 1995.

Walter Gubler, Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, Universitätsstrasse 31, D-93040 Regensburg, walter.gubler@mathematik.uni-regensburg.de

Florent Martin, Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, Universitätsstrasse 31, D-93040 Regensburg, florent.martin@mathematik.uni-regensburg.de

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