ScalingStacks

6. Further directions [00FH]

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

6. Further directions

First let us mention an interesting question that arises from Theorem 1.1. We know that on X\EX\backslash E the Ricci-flat metrics converge smoothly on compact sets to an incomplete Ricci-flat metric ω1\omega_{1}. Its metric completion is a metric space (X∞,d∞)(X_{\infty},d_{\infty}). Do the original metrics (X,ωt)(X,\omega_{t}) actually converge to (X∞,d∞)(X_{\infty},d_{\infty}) in the Gromov-Hausdorff topology? We can prove this in the case when XX is a K​3K3 surface and α=c1​(L)\alpha=c_{1}(L). In fact, from section 5 we know that EE is a union of (−2)(-2)-curves and the contraction map f:X→Yf:X\to Y maps them to orbifold points. The results of [An], [BKN], [Ti] give that a subsequence of (X,ωt)(X,\omega_{t}) converges to YY with its orbifold Ricci-flat metric d∞d_{\infty} in the Gromov-Hausdorff topology. But on the smooth part of YY we have that ω1\omega_{1} and d∞d_{\infty} coincide, because they are both singular Ricci-flat metrics on the whole of YY. Hence the metric completion of ω1\omega_{1} is d∞d_{\infty}.

Also, when XX admits a birational Calabi-Yau model YY, which has a singular Ricci-flat metric by [EGZ], what is the relation between YY and X∞X_{\infty}? In dimension 33 or more it’s hard to see how a singular Ricci-flat metric on YY should define a metric space structure.

There are two possible directions where it would be desirable to extend Theorem 1.1. The first case is when we look at the whole Kähler cone, instead of just the ample cone, and possibly drop the projectiveness assumption. Suppose XX is a compact Calabi-Yau nn-fold and fix ω0\omega_{0} a Ricci-flat metric on XX. The Neron-Severi space N1​(X)ℝN^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{R}} embeds into

Hℝ1,1​(X)=H2​(X,ℝ)∩H1,1​(X),H^{1,1}_{\mathbb{R}}(X)=H^{2}(X,\mathbb{R})\cap H^{1,1}(X),

but in general it is a proper subspace (for example a generic projective K3 has ρ⁡(X)=1<20=dimHℝ1,1​(X)\rho(X)=1<20=\dim H^{1,1}_{\mathbb{R}}(X)). Inside Hℝ1,1​(X)H^{1,1}_{\mathbb{R}}(X) we have 𝒦\mathcal{K}, the Kähler cone, and its closure 𝒦¯\overline{\mathcal{K}}, the nef cone. We have that

𝒦N​S=𝒦∩N1​(X)ℝ,\mathcal{K}_{NS}=\mathcal{K}\cap N^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{R}},

and similarly for the nef cone. Given a nonzero class α∈𝒦¯\𝒦\alpha\in\overline{\mathcal{K}}\backslash\mathcal{K}, and a smooth path αt:[0,1]→𝒦¯\alpha_{t}:[0,1]\to\overline{\mathcal{K}} that ends at α\alpha, Yau’s Theorem gives a path ωt\omega_{t} of Ricci-flat metrics in αt\alpha_{t} and we can analyze their behaviour as tt approaches 11. Let’s assume that α\alpha is big, which again means that αn>0.\alpha^{n}>0. We would like to repeat the construction we did in the algebraic case. There are two main points where we used the assumption that XX was projective and that α\alpha belonged to the Neron-Severi space: Proposition 4.1 and Kodaira’s lemma. We conjecture that the analogue of Proposition 4.1 still holds, namely we propose the

Conjecture 6.1.

Let XX be a compact Kähler Calabi-Yau manifold, and α∈Hℝ1,1​(X)\alpha\in H^{1,1}_{\mathbb{R}}(X) be a class which is nef and big, but not Kähler. Then α\alpha can be represented by a smooth (1,1)(1,1) form ω\omega which is pointwise nonnegative and which is Kähler outside a proper analytic subvariety E⊂XE\subset X.

Notice that the proof of this conjecture would have to use the fact the XX is Calabi-Yau, since in general a nef class cannot be represented by a smooth nonnegative form [DPS2]. If this conjecture were proved, we could then write ω\omega as the smooth limit of Kähler forms in αt\alpha_{t}, as in Proposition 4.1. The correct substitute for Kodaira’s lemma would then be given by the theory of closed positive currents: following [P2], which relies on the fundamental [DP], we know that there would exist a modification π:X~→X\pi:\tilde{X}\to X such that

π∗​ω=ω~+[E]−−1​∂∂¯​η,\pi^{*}\omega=\tilde{\omega}+[E]-\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\eta,

where ω~\tilde{\omega} is a Kähler form on X~\tilde{X}, EE is an effective ℚ\mathbb{Q}-divisor on X~\tilde{X} and η\eta is quasi-psh, smooth of EE and has only log poles along EE. Then we could just work on X~\tilde{X}, and get the same estimates as above, outside EE, thus proving the Kähler analogue of Theorem 1.1.

The second direction is to look at the case when the class α\alpha is nef but not necessarily big. A guiding example is the following: let XX be an elliptically fibered K​3K3 surface, so XX comes equipped with a morphism f:X→ℙ1f:X\to\mathbb{P}^{1} with fibers elliptic curves. Then the pullback of an ample line bundle on ℙ1\mathbb{P}^{1} gives a nef line bundle LL on XX with Iitaka dimension 11. In the case when all the singular fibers of ff are of Kodaira type I1I_{1}, Gross-Wilson have shown in [GW] that sequences of Ricci-flat metrics on XX whose class approaches c1​(L)c_{1}(L) converge in C∞C^{\infty} on compact sets of the complement of the singular fibers to the pullback of a Kähler metric on ℙ1\mathbb{P}^{1}. This metric on ℙ1\mathbb{P}^{1} was first studied by McLean [McL]. In a recent paper, Song-Tian [ST] gave a more direct proof of the result of Gross-Wilson. Moreover they noticed that McLean’s metric satisfies an elliptic equation outside the images of the singular fibers, namely its Ricci curvature equals the pullback of the Weil-Petersson metric from the moduli space of elliptic curves, that comes from the variation of the complex structure of the fibers of ff.

We believe that in higher dimensions a similar picture should be true, when α=c1​(L)\alpha=c_{1}(L). In this case Conjecture 2.1 would imply the existence of a morphism f:X→Yf:X\to Y with connected fibers, where dimY=κ⁡(X,L)<n\dim Y=\kappa(X,L)<n. Then we expect that outside a proper subvariety E⊂XE\subset X, a sequence of Ricci-flat metrics with class approaching α\alpha should converge in C∞C^{\infty} on compact sets of X\EX\backslash E to the pullback of a metric on YY. It is readily verified that, up to a subsequence, the Ricci-flat metrics converge weakly as currents to the pullback of a metric on YY. When YY is a curve, the fibers of ff are again Calabi-Yau’s, and a computation as in [ST] shows that limit metric on YY will satisfy the same equation as McLean’s metric (in this case the potentials of the Ricci-flat metrics have a uniform C0C^{0} bound [ST]). It might be possible to construct higher-dimensional examples of this behaviour using the results of Section 8 in [Fi], where the equation of McLean’s metric appears in his condition (C).

The situation is different when α\alpha is not c1​(L)c_{1}(L), and XX possibly not projective. Then an example of McMullen [McM] shows that the Ricci-flat metrics can converge smoothly to zero on an open set of XX. Also easy examples on tori show that the fibration structure as above cannot be expected when the limiting class α\alpha is not rational. Instead we still expect the Ricci-flat metrics to converge smoothly on compact sets outside a subvariety EE to a limit nonnegative form ω\omega, whose determinant vanishes identically. The kernel of ω\omega would then define a complex foliation with singularities on X\EX\backslash E, whose leaves might be dense in XX. The leaves of the foliation are always complex submanifolds, but they might not vary holomorphically and the rank of the foliation might change on different open sets (as in McMullen’s example). Notice that if the curvature is uniformly bounded, then Ruan’s result [Ru] implies that this picture is basically true and moreover that the foliation is holomorphic, so that its rank is constant on a Zariski open set. In McMullen’s example the curvature blows up, and the resulting foliation is not holomorphic, thus showing that Ruan’s result doesn’t hold if the curvature is unbounded.

Let us mention that the results of [BKN], [Ba] also give a description of the behaviour of the Ricci-flat metrics near the singularities, where some bubbling occurs. Unfortunately our methods don’t seem to give results of this kind and it would be very interesting to study this in higher dimensions when the limit Calabi-Yau model doesn’t have orbifold singularities.

Finally let us notice that some of the results here generalize to the following setting: XX is a compact Kähler manifold, and we fix a smooth volume form Ω\Omega. If αt\alpha_{t} is a path of Kähler classes as in the beginning of this section, then for each t<1t<1 Yau’s theorem [Y2] gives a unique Kähler form ωt\omega_{t} in αt\alpha_{t} such that

ωtn=αtn∫XΩ​Ω.\omega_{t}^{n}=\frac{\alpha_{t}^{n}}{\int_{X}\Omega}\Omega.

We can then study the behaviour of the metrics ωt\omega_{t} as tt approaches 11. If the image of αt\alpha_{t} lies in N1​(X)ℝN^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{R}} and the limit class α=c1​(L)\alpha=c_{1}(L) where LL is a nef, big and semiample line bundle, then the argument of Theorem 1.1 goes through, and we get smooth convergence on compact sets outside the null locus of LL.

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