ScalingStacks

4.1 Yau’s solution to the Calabi conjecture [004B]

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

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

4.1 Yau’s solution to the Calabi conjecture

A cornerstone of Kähler geometry is Yau’s celebrated proof of the Calabi conjecture, which implies

Theorem 4.1.

[77] A compact Kähler manifold XX with a nowhere vanishing holomorphic volume form Ω\Omega admits a unique Calabi-Yau metric (g,ω,J,Ω)(g,\omega,J,\Omega) within any given Kähler class.

We now give a very sketchy account of (the modern view on) Yau’s proof of Theorem 4.1. Fix a background Kähler metric ω\omega in the given class, and the task is to find a Kähler potential ϕ\phi solving the complex Monge-Ampère equation for any given density function efe^{f} satisfying the cohomological constraint ∫Xef​ωn=∫Xωn\int_{X}e^{f}\omega^{n}=\int_{X}\omega^{n},

ωϕn=(ω+d​dc​ϕ)n=ef​ωn,∫Xϕ​ωn=0,\omega_{\phi}^{n}=(\omega+dd^{c}\phi)^{n}=e^{f}\omega^{n},\quad\int_{X}\phi\omega^{n}=0, (9)

In particular for ef​ωn=const⋅Ω∧Ω¯e^{f}\omega^{n}=\text{const}\cdot\Omega\wedge\overline{\Omega} one obtains the Calabi-Yau metric. The uniqueness follows from a simple integration by parts argument.

The existence proof follows the continuity method, namely to deform through the space of Kähler metrics as ff deforms from zero to the desired function. Viewing (9) as defining a map from the potential to the density function, we need to show the map is submersive and proper. The submersion property is a consequence of standard Hodge theory on the Laplacian. To show properness one needs a priori estimates on ϕ\phi depending only on XX and bounds on ff, and for that matter we are free to impose any order of regularity on ff.

The first step is to bound ‖ϕ‖C0\left\lVert\phi\right\rVert_{C^{0}} (known as ‘C0C^{0}-estimate’), using a technique called Moser iteration. We rewrite the equation as

(1−ef)​ωn=−d​dc​ϕ∧(ωn−1+ωn−1∧ωϕ+…+ωϕn−1).(1-e^{f})\omega^{n}=-dd^{c}\phi\wedge(\omega^{n-1}+\omega^{n-1}\wedge\omega_{\phi}+\ldots+\omega_{\phi}^{n-1}).

For any p>1p>1, multiply the equation by ϕ​|ϕ|p−2\phi|\phi|^{p-2} and integrate by parts,

∫X|∇|ϕ|p/2|ω2​ωn≤C⁡(n,‖f‖L∞)​p2p−1​∫X|ϕ|p−1​ωn.\int_{X}|\nabla|\phi|^{p/2}|_{\omega}^{2}\omega^{n}\leq\frac{C(n,\left\lVert f\right\rVert_{L^{\infty}})p^{2}}{p-1}\int_{X}|\phi|^{p-1}\omega^{n}.

The key is that a weaker norm on RHS controls a stronger norm on LHS. This is reverse to the direction of the Poincaré inequality

∫Xu2​ωn≤C​∫X|𝑑u|ω2​ωn,∫Xu=0,\int_{X}u^{2}\omega^{n}\leq C\int_{X}|du|_{\omega}^{2}\omega^{n},\quad\int_{X}u=0,

and the Sobolev inequality

∫X|u|2​nn−1​ωn≤C⁡(∫X|𝑑u|ω2​ωn+∫X|u|2​ωn).\int_{X}|u|^{\frac{2n}{n-1}}\omega^{n}\leq C(\int_{X}|du|^{2}_{\omega}\omega^{n}+\int_{X}|u|^{2}\omega^{n}).

The combined force is that ‖ϕ‖L12≤C\left\lVert\phi\right\rVert_{L^{2}_{1}}\leq C, and one can inductively bound ‖ϕ‖Lp\left\lVert\phi\right\rVert_{L^{p}} for large pp, which turns out to be uniform in pp. Taking the limit p→∞p\to\infty, this gives a bound ‖ϕ‖L∞≤C⁡(X,‖f‖L∞)\left\lVert\phi\right\rVert_{L^{\infty}}\leq C(X,\left\lVert f\right\rVert_{L^{\infty}}).

The second step is to bound ‖d​dc​ϕ‖C0\left\lVert dd^{c}\phi\right\rVert_{C^{0}} (known as C1,1¯C^{1,\bar{1}}-estimate), i.e. to prove a uniform equivalence between ω\omega and ωϕ\omega_{\phi}. The starting point is a differential inequality by local calculations (in the analyst’s convention of Laplacian)

Δωϕ​log⁡Trω​ωϕ≥−C​Trωϕ​ω−C.\Delta_{\omega_{\phi}}\log\Tr_{\omega}\omega_{\phi}\geq-C\Tr_{\omega_{\phi}}\omega-C.

Subtracting a large enough multiply of the identity

Δωϕ​ϕ=n−Trωϕ⁡ω,\Delta_{\omega_{\phi}}\phi=n-\Tr_{\omega_{\phi}}\omega,

we get a differential inequality

Δωϕ​(log⁡Trω⁡ωϕ−C​ϕ)≥Trωϕ⁡ω−C′.\Delta_{\omega_{\phi}}(\log\Tr_{\omega}\omega_{\phi}-C\phi)\geq\Tr_{\omega_{\phi}}\omega-C^{\prime}.

Using the a priori bound on ϕ\phi, an application of maximum principle then shows Trω⁡ωϕ≤C\Tr_{\omega}\omega_{\phi}\leq C.

Remark 4.

This C1,1¯C^{1,\bar{1}}-estimate argument has global nature: if we only know (9) on a standard unit ball in ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n} with a given C0C^{0}-bound on ϕ\phi, there are counterexamples for the C1,1¯C^{1,\bar{1}}-bound. The solution can develop singularities.

The third step is to get higher order estimates. Standard elliptic theory implies it is sufficient to have a C2,αC^{2,\alpha} bound on ϕ\phi. Evans-Krylov theory bridged the gap between C1,1¯C^{1,\bar{1}}-bound and C2,αC^{2,\alpha}-bound (cf. [66] Chapter 2, Section 4 for details). This argument is of local nature, and crucially uses that logdet(∂i∂j¯ϕ)\log\det(\partial_{i}\partial_{\bar{j}}\phi) is a concave function of the matrix (∂i∂j¯ϕ)(\partial_{i}\partial_{\bar{j}}\phi), and the main tool is a Harnack inequality. The geometric insight is that higher order regularity is a manifestation of the local Euclidean nature of Kähler manifolds.

Yau’s proof strategy is highly influential and permeates the vast majority of works on CY metrics. The brief sketch above, however, highlights two reasons why it is difficult to adapt to the setting of SYZ conjecture:

  • •

    The CY metrics undergoing large complex structure limit are highly degenerate, to the extent that the Sobolev constant becomes too big, so that the Moser iteration technique does not give useful C0C^{0}-estimate on the potential.

  • •

    The C1,1¯C^{1,\bar{1}} bound has global nature, so in order to obtain useful estimates on the Calabi-Yau metric only in the generic region, the design of the maximum principle must hold globally. This is hard on highly degenerate manifolds, where Riemannian curvature cannot be globally uniformly bounded.

For these reasons, our approach to the SYZ conjecture has significant departure from Yau’s proof. The potential estimates use complex pluripotential theory instead, and the metric estimate in the generic region uses a deep theorem of Savin in elliptic PDE theory, bypassing Yau’s estimates.

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