ScalingStacks

3. Proof of Theorem A [015B]

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 Β· Original author HTML

3. Proof of TheoremΒ A

In this section, we describe in more detail the objects involved in Theorem A, and then provide a proof. We work purely in the complex analytic category here.

3.1. Residual measures

Let Ο€:𝒳→𝔻\pi\colon{\mathcal{X}}\to{\mathbb{D}} be an snc degeneration, i.e. a proper, surjective holomorphic map from a connected complex manifold to the unit disc in β„‚{\mathbb{C}}, whose restriction to X:=Ο€βˆ’1​(π”»βˆ—)X:=\pi^{-1}({\mathbb{D}}^{*}) is a submersion and such that 𝒳0:=Ο€βˆ’1​(0)=βˆ‘i∈Ibi​Ei{\mathcal{X}}_{0}:=\pi^{-1}(0)=\sum_{i\in I}b_{i}E_{i} has snc support. Note that Xt:=Ο€βˆ’1​(t)X_{t}:=\pi^{-1}(t) is non-singular for tβˆˆπ”»βˆ—t\in{\mathbb{D}}^{*}. The dual complex Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is defined as that of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}; it is equipped with its natural β„€{\mathbb{Z}}-PA structure. The logarithmic canonical bundle of 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} is

K𝒳log:=K𝒳+𝒳0,red.K^{\mathrm{log}}_{\mathcal{X}}:=K_{\mathcal{X}}+{\mathcal{X}}_{0,\mathrm{red}}.

Setting K𝔻log:=K𝔻+[0]K^{\mathrm{log}}_{{\mathbb{D}}}:=K_{\mathbb{D}}+[0], we define the relative logarithmic canonical bundle as

K𝒳/𝔻log:=K𝒳logβˆ’Ο€βˆ—β€‹K𝔻log=K𝒳/𝔻+𝒳0,redβˆ’π’³0.K^{\mathrm{log}}_{{\mathcal{X}}/{\mathbb{D}}}:=K^{\mathrm{log}}_{\mathcal{X}}-\pi^{*}K^{\mathrm{log}}_{{\mathbb{D}}}=K_{{\mathcal{X}}/{\mathbb{D}}}+{\mathcal{X}}_{0,\mathrm{red}}-{\mathcal{X}}_{0}.

Now suppose we are given a β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-line bundle β„’{\mathcal{L}} on 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} extending KX/π”»βˆ—K_{X/{\mathbb{D}}^{*}}. We then have a unique decomposition

K𝒳/𝔻log=β„’+βˆ‘i∈Iai​EiK^{\mathrm{log}}_{{\mathcal{X}}/{\mathbb{D}}}={\mathcal{L}}+\sum_{i\in I}a_{i}E_{i}

with aiβˆˆβ„ša_{i}\in{\mathbb{Q}}. Set ΞΊi:=ai/bi\kappa_{i}:=a_{i}/b_{i} and ΞΊmin:=mini⁑κi\kappa_{\min}:=\min_{i}\kappa_{i}.

Definition 3.1.

We denote by Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}) the subcomplex of Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) such that a face Οƒ\sigma of Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is in Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}) if and only if each vertex of Οƒ\sigma achieves mini⁑κi\min_{i}\kappa_{i}.

In general, Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}) is neither connected nor pure dimensional. We say that a face of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}) is maximal if it is not contained in a larger face of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}).

Lemma 3.2.

Let YβŠ‚π’³0Y\subset{\mathcal{X}}_{0} be a stratum corresponding to face Οƒ\sigma of Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}), and denote by JβŠ‚IJ\subset I the set of irreducible components EiE_{i} cutting out YY. Then

BYβ„’:=βˆ‘iβˆ‰J(1βˆ’(aiβˆ’ΞΊmin​bi))​Ei|YB^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y}:=\sum_{i\notin J}(1-(a_{i}-\kappa_{\min}b_{i}))E_{i}|_{Y}

is a β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-divisor on YY with snc support, and we have a canonical identification

β„’|Y=K(Y,BYβ„’):=KY+BYβ„’{\mathcal{L}}|_{Y}=K_{(Y,B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y})}:=K_{Y}+B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y}

as β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-line bundles. If we further assume that Οƒ\sigma is a maximal face of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}), then BYβ„’B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y} has coefficients <1<1, so the pair (Y,BYβ„’)(Y,B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y}) is subklt.

Proof.

The first point is a simple consequence of the triviality of the normal bundle π’ͺ𝒳0​(𝒳0){\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}_{0}}({\mathcal{X}}_{0}) together with the adjunction formula

KY=(K𝒳+βˆ‘i∈JEi)|Y,K_{Y}=(K_{\mathcal{X}}+\sum_{i\in J}E_{i})|_{Y},

canonically realized by PoincarΓ© residues once an order on JJ has been chosen. When Οƒ\sigma is a maximal face of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}), each EiE_{i} meeting YY properly satisfies ΞΊi>ΞΊmin\kappa_{i}>\kappa_{\min}, which implies that BYβ„’B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y} has coefficients <1<1. ∎

If ψ\psi is a continuous metric on β„’{\mathcal{L}}, ψ|Y\psi|_{Y} may thus be viewed as a metric on K(Y,BYβ„’)K_{(Y,B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y})}. When Οƒ\sigma is a maximal face of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}), the pair (Y,BYβ„’)(Y,B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y}) is subklt, and LemmaΒ 1.1 applies. This leads to the following notion.

Definition 3.3.

Let YY be a stratum corresponding to a maximal face of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}). The residual measure on YY of a continuous metric ψ\psi on β„’{\mathcal{L}} is the (finite) positive measure on YY defined by

ResY⁑(ψ):=exp⁑(2​(ψ|Yβˆ’Ο•BYβ„’)).\operatorname{Res}_{Y}(\psi):=\exp\left(2(\psi|_{Y}-\phi_{B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y}})\right).

This measure can be more explicitly described as follows. At each point ξ∈Y\xi\in Y, pick local coordinates (z0,…,zn)(z_{0},\dots,z_{n}) such that z0,…,zpz_{0},\dots,z_{p} are local equations for the components E0,…,EpE_{0},\dots,E_{p} of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} that pass through ΞΎ\xi, indexed so that J={0,…,d}J=\{0,\dots,d\}, where 0≀d≀p0\leq d\leq p, and such that t=∏j=0pzjbjt=\prod_{j=0}^{p}z_{j}^{b_{j}} The logarithmic form

Ξ©:=d​z0z0βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zpzp∧d​zp+1βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zn\Omega:=\frac{dz_{0}}{z_{0}}\wedge\dots\wedge\frac{dz_{p}}{z_{p}}\wedge dz_{p+1}\wedge\dots\wedge dz_{n}

is a local trivialization of K𝒳logK^{\mathrm{log}}_{{\mathcal{X}}}, and hence induces a local trivialization Ξ©rel=Ξ©βŠ—(d​t/t)βˆ’1\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}}=\Omega\otimes(dt/t)^{-1} of K𝒳/𝔻logK^{\mathrm{log}}_{{\mathcal{X}}/{\mathbb{D}}}. We may then view Ο„:=∏i=0pziai​Ωrel\tau:=\prod_{i=0}^{p}z_{i}^{a_{i}}\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}} as a local β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-generator of β„’{\mathcal{L}}. Under the identification β„’|Y=K(Y,BYβ„’){\mathcal{L}}|_{Y}=K_{(Y,B^{\mathcal{L}}_{Y})}, we have

Ο„|Y=∏i=d+1pziaiβˆ’ΞΊmin​bi​ResY⁑(Ξ©)\tau|_{Y}=\prod_{i=d+1}^{p}z_{i}^{a_{i}-\kappa_{\min}b_{i}}\operatorname{Res}_{Y}(\Omega)

with

ResY⁑(Ξ©)=d​zd+1zd+1βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zpzp∧d​zp+1βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zn|Y.\operatorname{Res}_{Y}(\Omega)=\frac{dz_{d+1}}{z_{d+1}}\wedge\dots\wedge\frac{dz_{p}}{z_{p}}\wedge dz_{p+1}\wedge\dots\wedge dz_{n}\bigg|_{Y}.

We infer

ResY⁑(ψ)=|Ο„|Οˆβˆ’2β€‹βˆi=d+1p|zi|2​(aiβˆ’ΞΊmin​biβˆ’1)​|β‹€i=d+1nd​zi|2.\operatorname{Res}_{Y}(\psi)=|\tau|^{-2}_{\psi}\prod_{i=d+1}^{p}|z_{i}|^{2(a_{i}-\kappa_{\min}b_{i}-1)}\bigg|\bigwedge_{i=d+1}^{n}dz_{i}\bigg|^{2}. (3.1)

3.2. Statement and first reductions

It will be convenient to introduce the quantity

λ⁑(t):=(log⁑|t|βˆ’1)βˆ’1,\lambda(t):=(\log|t|^{-1})^{-1},

for tβˆˆπ”»βˆ—t\in{\mathbb{D}}^{*}. Note that λ⁑(t)β†’0\lambda(t)\to 0 as tβ†’0t\to 0.

Let 𝒳hyb:=Xβ€‹βˆΞ”β‘(𝒳){\mathcal{X}}^{\mathrm{hyb}}:=X\coprod\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) be the locally compact hybrid space constructed inΒ Β§2. It comes with a proper map Ο€:𝒳hybβ†’Ξ”\pi\colon{\mathcal{X}}^{\mathrm{hyb}}\to\Delta extending Ο€:Xβ†’π”»βˆ—\pi\colon X\to{\mathbb{D}}^{*} and such that Δ​(𝒳)=Ο€βˆ’1​(0)\Delta({\mathcal{X}})=\pi^{-1}(0). The next result implies Theorem A in the introduction.

Theorem 3.4.

Let Ο€:𝒳→𝔻\pi\colon{\mathcal{X}}\to{\mathbb{D}} be an snc degeneration, β„’{\mathcal{L}} a β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-line bundle on 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} extending KX/π”»βˆ—K_{X/{\mathbb{D}}^{*}}, and ψ\psi a continuous metric on β„’{\mathcal{L}}. Define ΞΊmin\kappa_{\min} as above, and set d:=dimΔ⁑(β„’)d:=\dim\Delta({\mathcal{L}}). Then, viewed as measures on 𝒳hyb{\mathcal{X}}^{\mathrm{hyb}},

ΞΌt:=λ​(t)d(2​π)d​|t|2​κmin​e2β€‹Οˆt\mu_{t}:=\frac{\lambda(t)^{d}}{(2\pi)^{d}|t|^{2\kappa_{\min}}}e^{2\psi_{t}}

converges weakly to

ΞΌ0:=βˆ‘Οƒ(∫YΟƒResYσ⁑(ψ))​bΟƒβˆ’1​λσ,\mu_{0}:=\sum_{\sigma}\left(\int_{Y_{\sigma}}\operatorname{Res}_{Y_{\sigma}}(\psi)\right)b_{\sigma}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma},

where Οƒ\sigma ranges over the dd-dimensional faces of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}). Here λσ\lambda_{\sigma} denotes normalized Lebesgue measure on Οƒ\sigma and bΟƒ=gcdi∈J⁑bib_{\sigma}=\gcd_{i\in J}b_{i}, where 𝒳0=βˆ‘ibi​Ei{\mathcal{X}}_{0}=\sum_{i}b_{i}E_{i} and EiE_{i}, i∈Ji\in J are the divisors defining Οƒ\sigma.

We start by making a few reductions. First, we mayβ€”and willβ€”assume in what follows that ΞΊmin=0\kappa_{\min}=0. Indeed, tt defines a nonvanishing section of π’ͺ𝒳​(𝒳0){\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{X}}({\mathcal{X}}_{0}), and hence a smooth metric log⁑|t|\log|t|, so we may replace β„’{\mathcal{L}} and ψ\psi with β„’βˆ’ΞΊmin​𝒳0{\mathcal{L}}-\kappa_{\min}{\mathcal{X}}_{0} and Οˆβˆ’ΞΊmin​log⁑|t|\psi-\kappa_{\min}\log|t|, respectively, and end up with ΞΊmin=0\kappa_{\min}=0.

Since mini⁑ai/bi=ΞΊmin=0\min_{i}a_{i}/b_{i}=\kappa_{\min}=0, we then have aiβ‰₯0a_{i}\geq 0, with equality if and only if EiE_{i} corresponds to a vertex of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}).

Next we reduce the assertion of TheoremΒ 3.4 to a local problem. Let YβŠ‚π’³0Y\subset{\mathcal{X}}_{0} be the stratum of an arbitrary face Οƒ\sigma of Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}), and denote by E0,…,EpE_{0},\dots,E_{p} the components of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} cutting out YY, ordered so that

ΞΊ0=β‹―=ΞΊq<ΞΊq+1≀⋯≀κp.\kappa_{0}=\dots=\kappa_{q}<\kappa_{q+1}\leq\dots\leq\kappa_{p}.

We can then make the identification

Οƒ={wβˆˆβ„+p+1∣bβ‹…w=1}\sigma=\left\{w\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p+1}\mid b\cdot w=1\right\}

with b=(b0,…,bp)βˆˆβ„€>0p+1b=(b_{0},\dots,b_{p})\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}^{p+1}. Set bβ€²=(b0,…,bq)βˆˆβ„€>0q+1b^{\prime}=(b_{0},\dots,b_{q})\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}^{q+1} and

Οƒβ€²:={wβ€²βˆˆβ„+q+1∣bβ€²β‹…wβ€²=1}.\sigma^{\prime}:=\left\{w^{\prime}\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{q+1}\mid b^{\prime}\cdot w^{\prime}=1\right\}.

Then Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} is a face of Οƒ\sigma under the embedding ℝ+q+1β†ͺℝ+p+1{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{q+1}\hookrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p+1} given by wβ€²β†’(wβ€²,0)w^{\prime}\to(w^{\prime},0). Let Yβ€²βŠƒYY^{\prime}\supset Y be the corresponding stratum of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}.

Note that Οƒ\sigma contains a face of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}) if and only if ΞΊ0=0\kappa_{0}=0; in that case, the face is unique, equal to Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} (which then implies q≀dq\leq d).

Pick x∈Y̊x\in\mathring{Y}, and choose local coordinates z=(z0,…,zn)z=(z_{0},\dots,z_{n}) at xx such that ziz_{i} is a local equation of EiE_{i} for 0≀i≀p0\leq i\leq p and

t=∏i=0pzibit=\prod_{i=0}^{p}z_{i}^{b_{i}}

We may assume that zz is defined on a polydisc 𝒰≃𝔻​(r)p+1×𝔻nβˆ’p{\mathcal{U}}\simeq{\mathbb{D}}(r)^{p+1}\times{\mathbb{D}}^{n-p} with 0<rβ‰ͺ10<r\ll 1. Decompose

z=(z0,…,zn)βˆˆπ’°β‰ƒπ”»β€‹(r)p+1×𝔻nβˆ’pz=(z_{0},\dots,z_{n})\in{\mathcal{U}}\simeq{\mathbb{D}}(r)^{p+1}\times{\mathbb{D}}^{n-p}

as

z=(zβ€²,zβ€²β€²,y)βˆˆπ”»β€‹(r)q+1×𝔻​(r)pβˆ’q×𝔻nβˆ’p,z=(z^{\prime},z^{\prime\prime},y)\in{\mathbb{D}}(r)^{q+1}\times{\mathbb{D}}(r)^{p-q}\times{\mathbb{D}}^{n-p},

where we view yy as a point of π’°βˆ©Y≃𝔻nβˆ’p{\mathcal{U}}\cap Y\simeq{\mathbb{D}}^{n-p}, and (zβ€²β€²,y)(z^{\prime\prime},y) as a point of π’°βˆ©Y′≃𝔻​(r)pβˆ’q×𝔻nβˆ’p{\mathcal{U}}\cap Y^{\prime}\simeq{\mathbb{D}}(r)^{p-q}\times{\mathbb{D}}^{n-p}.

The coordinate chart (𝒰,z)({\mathcal{U}},z) is adapted to 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} in the sense ofΒ Β§2.2, with

Log𝒰:π’°βˆ–π’³0β†’Οƒ\operatorname{Log}_{{\mathcal{U}}}\colon{\mathcal{U}}\setminus{\mathcal{X}}_{0}\to\sigma

given by

Log𝒰=(log⁑|zi|log⁑|t|)0≀i≀p.\operatorname{Log}_{{\mathcal{U}}}=\left(\frac{\log|z_{i}|}{\log|t|}\right)_{0\leq i\leq p}.

We aim to establish the following result.

Lemma 3.5.

Pick Ο‡βˆˆCc0​(𝒰)\chi\in C^{0}_{c}({\mathcal{U}}). If ΞΊ0=0\kappa_{0}=0 and q=dq=d, then

limtβ†’0(Log𝒰)βˆ—β€‹(χ​μt)=(∫Y′χ​ResY′⁑(ψ))​bΟƒβ€²βˆ’1​λσ′\lim_{t\to 0}(\operatorname{Log}_{{\mathcal{U}}})_{*}(\chi\mu_{t})=\left(\int_{Y^{\prime}}\chi\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime}}(\psi)\right)b_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma}^{\prime}

in the weak topology of measures on Οƒ\sigma, with Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} the unique dd-dimensional face of Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}) contained in Οƒ\sigma. Otherwise (i.e. if ΞΊ0>0\kappa_{0}>0 or q<dq<d) (Log𝒰)βˆ—β€‹(χ​μt)β†’0(\operatorname{Log}_{{\mathcal{U}}})_{*}(\chi\mu_{t})\to 0.

Granted this result, let us show how to prove TheoremΒ 3.4. For 0<rβ‰ͺ10<r\ll 1, 𝒱:=Ο€βˆ’1​(𝔻¯r)βŠ‚π’³{\mathcal{V}}:=\pi^{-1}(\overline{{\mathbb{D}}}_{r})\subset{\mathcal{X}} is an compact neighborhood of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} with a map Log𝒱:𝒱hyb→Δ⁑(𝒳)\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}}\colon{\mathcal{V}}^{\mathrm{hyb}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) as in PropositionΒ 2.1. We will use

Lemma 3.6.

Let ΞΌt\mu_{t}, tβˆˆπ”»rt\in{\mathbb{D}}_{r} be a family of probability measures on 𝒳hyb{\mathcal{X}}^{\mathrm{hyb}} such that ΞΌt\mu_{t} is supported on 𝒳t{\mathcal{X}}_{t}. Then limtβ†’0ΞΌt=ΞΌ0\lim_{t\to 0}\mu_{t}=\mu_{0} if and only if limtβ†’0(Log𝒱)βˆ—β€‹ΞΌt=ΞΌ0\lim_{t\to 0}(\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}})_{*}\mu_{t}=\mu_{0}. Here the limits are in the sense of weak convergence of measures on 𝒳hyb{\mathcal{X}}^{\mathrm{hyb}} and Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}), respectively.

By LemmaΒ 3.6 we must show that

(Log𝒱)βˆ—β€‹ΞΌtβ†’ΞΌ0=βˆ‘Οƒβ€²(∫Yβ€²ResY′⁑(ψ))​bΟƒβ€²βˆ’1​λσ′,(\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}})_{*}\mu_{t}\to\mu_{0}=\sum_{\sigma^{\prime}}\left(\int_{Y^{\prime}}\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime}}(\psi)\right)b_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma^{\prime}},

where Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} ranges over dd-dimensional simplices in Δ⁑(β„’)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}). But this is easily seen to follow from LemmaΒ 3.5, using a partition of unity argument as in the proof of PropositionΒ 2.1.

Proof of LemmaΒ 3.6.

The direct implication follows from the continuity of Log𝒱\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}}. For the reverse implication, assume that limtβ†’0(Log𝒱)βˆ—β€‹ΞΌt=ΞΌ0\lim_{t\to 0}(\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}})_{*}\mu_{t}=\mu_{0} and consider the following three subsets of C0​(𝒱)C^{0}({\mathcal{V}}): A1A_{1} is the set of functions of the form Logπ’±βˆ—β€‹Ο†\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}}^{*}\varphi, where Ο†βˆˆC0​(Δ​(𝒳))\varphi\in C^{0}(\Delta({\mathcal{X}})); A2A_{2} is the set of functions of the form Ο€βˆ—β€‹g\pi^{*}g, where g∈C0​(𝔻r)g\in C^{0}({\mathbb{D}}_{r}); and A3=Cc0​(π’±βˆ–Ξ”β‘(𝒳))A_{3}=C^{0}_{c}({\mathcal{V}}\setminus\Delta({\mathcal{X}})) together with the constant function 1. Then the real vector space AβŠ‚C0​(𝒱)A\subset C^{0}({\mathcal{V}}) spanned by functions of the form f1​f2​f3f_{1}f_{2}f_{3}, with fi∈Aif_{i}\in A_{i} is easily seen to be an ℝ{\mathbb{R}}-algebra that separates points and contains all constant functions. By the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem, AA is dense in C0​(𝒱)C^{0}({\mathcal{V}}), so it suffices to prove that lim∫⁑f​μt=∫f​μ0\lim\int f\mu_{t}=\int f\mu_{0} for f∈Af\in A. By linearity, we may assume f=f1​f2​f3f=f_{1}f_{2}f_{3} with fi∈Aif_{i}\in A_{i}. We may further assume f3=1f_{3}=1. Write f1=Logπ’±βˆ—β€‹Ο†f_{1}=\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}}^{*}\varphi and f2=Ο€βˆ—β€‹gf_{2}=\pi^{*}g. Then

limtβ†’0∫Xtf​μt=limtβ†’0g⁑(t)β€‹βˆ«XtΟ†βˆ˜Log𝒱⁑μt=limtβ†’0g⁑(t)β€‹βˆ«Ξ”β‘(𝒳)φ​(Log𝒱)βˆ—β€‹ΞΌt=g⁑(0)β€‹βˆ«Ξ”β‘(𝒳)φ​μ0=∫f​μ0,\lim_{t\to 0}\int_{X_{t}}f\mu_{t}=\lim_{t\to 0}g(t)\int_{X_{t}}\varphi\circ\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}}\mu_{t}\\ =\lim_{t\to 0}g(t)\int_{\Delta({\mathcal{X}})}\varphi\ (\operatorname{Log}_{\mathcal{V}})_{*}\mu_{t}=g(0)\int_{\Delta({\mathcal{X}})}\varphi\mu_{0}=\int f\mu_{0},

which completes the proof. ∎

3.3. Proof of LemmaΒ 3.5

As inΒ Β§3.1, we introduce the logarithmic form

Ξ©:=d​z0z0βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zpzp∧d​zp+1βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zn,\Omega:=\frac{dz_{0}}{z_{0}}\wedge\dots\wedge\frac{dz_{p}}{z_{p}}\wedge dz_{p+1}\wedge\dots\wedge dz_{n},

and the corresponding local trivialization Ξ©rel=Ξ©βŠ—(d​t/t)βˆ’1\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}}=\Omega\otimes(dt/t)^{-1} of K𝒳/𝔻logK^{\mathrm{log}}_{{\mathcal{X}}/{\mathbb{D}}}. The restriction Ξ©t\Omega_{t} of Ξ©rel\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}} to the fiber Ut:=𝒳tβˆ©π’°U_{t}:={\mathcal{X}}_{t}\cap{\mathcal{U}} is a trivializing section of KUtK_{U_{t}}, explicitly given by

Ξ©t=1p+1β€‹βˆ‘j=0p(βˆ’1)jbj​d​z0z0βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zjzj^βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zpzp∧d​zp+1βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zn|Ut.\Omega_{t}=\frac{1}{p+1}\sum_{j=0}^{p}\frac{(-1)^{j}}{b_{j}}\frac{dz_{0}}{z_{0}}\wedge\dots\wedge\widehat{\frac{dz_{j}}{z_{j}}}\wedge\dots\wedge\frac{dz_{p}}{z_{p}}\wedge dz_{p+1}\wedge\dots\wedge dz_{n}\bigg|_{U_{t}}.

For tβˆˆπ”»βˆ—t\in{\mathbb{D}}^{*} close to 0, consider the map Logt:Ut→σ×(Yβˆ©π’°)\operatorname{Log}_{t}\colon U_{t}\to\sigma\times(Y\cap{\mathcal{U}}) defined by

Logt=(Log𝒰,y)=(log⁑|z0|log⁑|t|,…,log⁑|zp|log⁑|t|,zp+1,…,zn).\operatorname{Log}_{t}=(\operatorname{Log}_{{\mathcal{U}}},y)=\left(\frac{\log|z_{0}|}{\log|t|},\dots,\frac{\log|z_{p}|}{\log|t|},z_{p+1},\dots,z_{n}\right).

Note the similarity to the situation considered inΒ Β§1.4. More precisely, view U:=π’°βˆ©XU:={\mathcal{U}}\cap X as embedded in TΓ—β„‚nβˆ’pT\times{\mathbb{C}}^{n-p}, where T=(β„‚βˆ—)p+1T=({\mathbb{C}}^{*})^{p+1}, and consider the character Ο‡=∏i=0pzibi\chi=\prod_{i=0}^{p}z_{i}^{b_{i}} on TT. If L:T→ℝp+1L\colon T\to{\mathbb{R}}^{p+1} is the tropicalization map, then

Logt=(λ​(t)βˆ’1​L​(zβ€²,zβ€²β€²),y).\operatorname{Log}_{t}=(\lambda(t)^{-1}L(z^{\prime},z^{\prime\prime}),y).

Each fiber Logtβˆ’1⁑(w,y)\operatorname{Log}_{t}^{-1}(w,y) is a torsor for the (possibly disconnected) compact Lie group

K={θ∈(ℝ/β„€)p+1βˆ£βˆ‘ibi​θi=0};K=\left\{\theta\in({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})^{p+1}\mid\sum_{i}b_{i}\theta_{i}=0\right\};

hence carries a unique KK-invariant probability measure ρt,w,y\rho_{t,w,y}.

The analysis inΒ Β§1.4 now gives the following expression for the volume form |Ξ©t|2|\Omega_{t}|^{2} on UtU_{t} in logarithmic polar coordinates:

Lemma 3.7.

For h∈Cc0​(𝒰)h\in C^{0}_{c}({\mathcal{U}}) and tβˆˆπ”»βˆ—t\in{\mathbb{D}}^{*} close to 0, we have

∫Uth|Ξ©t|2=(2Ο€)pΞ»(t)βˆ’pβˆ«ΟƒΓ—(Yβˆ©π’°)bΟƒβˆ’1λσ(dw)βŠ—|dy|2∫Logtβˆ’1⁑(w,y)hρt,w,y,\int_{U_{t}}h|\Omega_{t}|^{2}=(2\pi)^{p}\lambda(t)^{-p}\int_{\sigma\times(Y\cap{\mathcal{U}})}b_{\sigma}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma}(dw)\otimes|dy|^{2}\int_{\operatorname{Log}_{t}^{-1}(w,y)}h\,\rho_{t,w,y}, (3.2)

where d​y:=d​zp+1βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​zndy:=dz_{p+1}\wedge\dots\wedge dz_{n}.

As before, view Ο„:=∏i=0pziai​Ωrel\tau:=\prod_{i=0}^{p}z_{i}^{a_{i}}\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}} as a local β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-generator of β„’{\mathcal{L}}, and set

g:=βˆ’log⁑|Ο„|ψ∈C0​(𝒰).g:=-\log|\tau|_{\psi}\in C^{0}({\mathcal{U}}).

By definition, we have ΞΌt=(2​π)βˆ’d​λ​(t)d​|Ξ©t|2/|Ξ©t|ψt2\mu_{t}=(2\pi)^{-d}\lambda(t)^{d}|\Omega_{t}|^{2}/|\Omega_{t}|^{2}_{\psi_{t}}, and hence

(2​π)dβˆ’p​λ​(t)pβˆ’d​|t|βˆ’2​κ0β€‹βˆ«Uth​μt=βˆ«ΟƒΓ—(Yβˆ©π’°)|t|2β€‹βˆ‘i=q+1pbi​wi​(ΞΊiβˆ’ΞΊ0)bΟƒβˆ’1λσ(dw)βŠ—|dy|2∫he2​gρt,w,y=βˆ«ΟƒΓ—(Yβˆ©π’°)eβˆ’2Ξ»(t)βˆ’1βˆ‘i=q+1pbiwi(ΞΊiβˆ’ΞΊ0)bΟƒβˆ’1Ξ»ΟƒβŠ—|dy|2∫he2​gρt,w,y(2\pi)^{d-p}\lambda(t)^{p-d}|t|^{-2\kappa_{0}}\int\limits_{U_{t}}h\mu_{t}\\ =\int\limits_{\sigma\times(Y\cap{\mathcal{U}})}|t|^{2\sum_{i=q+1}^{p}b_{i}w_{i}(\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{0})}b_{\sigma}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma}(dw)\otimes|dy|^{2}\int he^{2g}\,\rho_{t,w,y}\\ =\int\limits_{\sigma\times(Y\cap{\mathcal{U}})}e^{-2\lambda(t)^{-1}\sum_{i=q+1}^{p}b_{i}w_{i}(\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{0})}b_{\sigma}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma}\otimes|dy|^{2}\int he^{2g}\,\rho_{t,w,y} (3.3)

for every h∈Cc0​(𝒰)h\in C^{0}_{c}({\mathcal{U}}), thanks to LemmaΒ 3.7.

We use the following change of variables. For tβˆˆπ”»βˆ—t\in{\mathbb{D}}^{*}, consider the polytope

Οƒt:={(wβ€²,xβ€²β€²)βˆˆβ„+q+1×ℝ+pβˆ’q∣bβ€²β‹…wβ€²=1,bβ€²β€²β‹…x′′≀λ(t)βˆ’1}βŠ‚Οƒβ€²Γ—β„+pβˆ’qβŠ‚β„+p+1,\sigma_{t}:=\{(w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime})\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{q+1}\times{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-q}\mid b^{\prime}\cdot w^{\prime}=1,\ b^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime}\leq\lambda(t)^{-1}\}\subset\sigma^{\prime}\times{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-q}\subset{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p+1},

where bβ€²=(b0,…,bq)b^{\prime}=(b_{0},\dots,b_{q}) and bβ€²β€²=(bq+1,…,bp)b^{\prime\prime}=(b_{q+1},\dots,b_{p}).

Lemma 3.8.

The continuous map Qt:σt→σQ_{t}\colon\sigma_{t}\to\sigma defined by

Qt​(wβ€²,xβ€²β€²)=((1βˆ’Ξ»β‘(t)​bβ€²β€²β‹…xβ€²β€²)​wβ€²,λ⁑(t)​xβ€²β€²)Q_{t}(w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime})=\left(\left(1-\lambda(t)b^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime}\right)w^{\prime},\lambda(t)x^{\prime\prime}\right)

restricts to a homeomorphism between the interior of Οƒt\sigma_{t} and the interior of Οƒ\sigma. Further, its inverse maps the Lebesgue measure bΟƒβˆ’1​λσb_{\sigma}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma} on Οƒ\sigma to the measure

(Qtβˆ’1)βˆ—β€‹bΟƒβˆ’1​λσ=(1βˆ’Ξ»β‘(t)​bβ€²β€²β‹…xβ€²β€²)q​λ​(t)pβˆ’q​bΟƒβ€²βˆ’1β€‹Ξ»Οƒβ€²β€²βŠ—|d​xβ€²β€²|,(Q_{t}^{-1})_{*}b_{\sigma}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma}=\left(1-\lambda(t)b^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime}\right)^{q}\lambda(t)^{p-q}b_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{-1}\lambda^{\prime}_{\sigma^{\prime}}\otimes|dx^{\prime\prime}|,

on Οƒt\sigma_{t}, where |d​xβ€²β€²||dx^{\prime\prime}| is Lebesgue measure on ℝpβˆ’q{\mathbb{R}}^{p-q} normalized by β„€pβˆ’q{\mathbb{Z}}^{p-q}.

Proof.

The first statement is elementary. To prove the second, we must make sure to handle the β€œmultiplicities” bΟƒb_{\sigma} and bΟƒβ€²b_{\sigma^{\prime}} correctly. Parametrize the interior of Οƒ\sigma by coordinates (w1,…,wp)(w_{1},\dots,w_{p}) using w0=b0βˆ’1​(1βˆ’βˆ‘1pbi​wi)w_{0}=b_{0}^{-1}(1-\sum_{1}^{p}b_{i}w_{i}). By RemarkΒ 1.3 we have

bσ​λσ=|d​w1βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​wp|b_{\sigma}\lambda_{\sigma}=|dw_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge dw_{p}|

Similarly, we parametrize the interiors of Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} and Οƒt\sigma_{t} using coordinates (w1,…,wq)(w_{1},\dots,w_{q}) and (w1,…,wq,xq+1β€²β€²,…,xpβ€²β€²)(w_{1},\dots,w_{q},x^{\prime\prime}_{q+1},\dots,x^{\prime\prime}_{p}), respectively. Then

bσ′​λσ′=|d​w1βˆ§β‹―βˆ§d​wq|.b_{\sigma^{\prime}}\lambda_{\sigma^{\prime}}=|dw_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge dw_{q}|.

The required formula now follows from an elementary computation. ∎

Using the map QtQ_{t} and the fact that ΞΊiβˆ’ΞΊ0>0\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{0}>0 for i>qi>q, it is easy to see that

βˆ«Οƒeβˆ’2Ξ»(t)βˆ’1βˆ‘i=q+1pbiwi(ΞΊiβˆ’ΞΊ0)λσ(dw)=O(Ξ»(t)pβˆ’q).\int_{\sigma}e^{-2\lambda(t)^{-1}\sum_{i=q+1}^{p}b_{i}w_{i}(\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{0})}\lambda_{\sigma}(dw)=O(\lambda(t)^{p-q}).

ByΒ (3.3), it follows that

ΞΌt​(Ut)=O⁑(λ​(t)dβˆ’q​|t|2​κ0),\mu_{t}(U_{t})=O(\lambda(t)^{d-q}|t|^{2\kappa_{0}}), (3.4)

and hence ΞΌt​(Ut)β†’0\mu_{t}(U_{t})\to 0 unless ΞΊ0=0\kappa_{0}=0 and q=dq=d, which we henceforth assume. Given Ο†βˆˆC0​(Οƒ)\varphi\in C^{0}(\sigma), our goal is now to show

∫Ut(Ο†βˆ˜Log𝒰)​χ​μtβ†’(βˆ«Οƒβ€²Ο†β€‹bΟƒβ€²βˆ’1​λσ′).(∫Y′χ​ResY′⁑(ψ)).\int_{U_{t}}(\varphi\circ\operatorname{Log}_{{\mathcal{U}}})\chi\,\mu_{t}\to\left(\int_{\sigma^{\prime}}\varphi b_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma^{\prime}}\right).\left(\int_{Y^{\prime}}\chi\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime}}(\psi)\right). (3.5)

Let us first express both sides ofΒ (3.5) in logarithmic polar coordinates. We start by the left-hand side. Set f:=χ​e2​g∈C0​(𝒰)f:=\chi e^{2g}\in C^{0}({\mathcal{U}}). ByΒ (3.3) and LemmaΒ 3.8 we have

(2​π)dβˆ’pβ€‹βˆ«Ut(Ο†βˆ˜Log𝒰)​χ​μt=Ξ»(t)dβˆ’pβˆ«ΟƒΓ—(Yβˆ©π’°)Ο†(w)eβˆ’2Ξ»(t)βˆ’1aβ€²β€²β‹…wβ€²β€²bΟƒβˆ’1λσ(dw)βŠ—|dy|2∫fρt,w,y=βˆ«Οƒβ€²Γ—β„+pβˆ’dΓ—(Yβˆ©π’°)Ht(wβ€²,xβ€²β€²)bΟƒβ€²βˆ’1λσ′(dwβ€²)βŠ—|dxβ€²β€²|βŠ—|dy|2∫fρt,wβ€²,xβ€²β€²,y,(2\pi)^{d-p}\int_{U_{t}}(\varphi\circ\operatorname{Log}_{{\mathcal{U}}})\chi\,\mu_{t}\\ =\lambda(t)^{d-p}\int\limits_{\sigma\times(Y\cap{\mathcal{U}})}\varphi(w)e^{-2\lambda(t)^{-1}a^{\prime\prime}\cdot w^{\prime\prime}}b_{\sigma}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma}(dw)\otimes|dy|^{2}\int f\,\rho_{t,w,y}\\ =\int\limits_{\sigma^{\prime}\times{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-d}\times(Y\cap{\mathcal{U}})}H_{t}(w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime})b_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma^{\prime}}(dw^{\prime})\otimes|dx^{\prime\prime}|\otimes|dy|^{2}\int f\,\rho_{t,w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime},y}, (3.6)

where

Ht(wβ€²,xβ€²β€²)=πŸΟƒtΟ†(Qt(wβ€²,xβ€²β€²))eβˆ’2aβ€²β€²β‹…xβ€²β€²(1βˆ’Ξ»(t)bβ€²β€²β‹…xβ€²β€²)d,H_{t}(w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime})=\mathbf{1}_{\sigma_{t}}\varphi(Q_{t}(w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime}))e^{-2a^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime}}(1-\lambda(t)b^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime})^{d},

and ρt,wβ€²,xβ€²β€²,y\rho_{t,w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime},y} is the same measure as ρt,w,y\rho_{t,w,y} via the identification Qt​(wβ€²,xβ€²β€²)=wQ_{t}(w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime})=w.

Note that limtβ†’0Qt​(wβ€²,xβ€²β€²)=(wβ€²,0)\lim_{t\to 0}Q_{t}(w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime})=(w^{\prime},0), so

limtβ†’0Ht(wβ€²,xβ€²β€²)=πŸΟƒβ€²Γ—β„+pβˆ’dΟ†(wβ€²,0)eβˆ’2aβ€²β€²β‹…xβ€²β€².\lim_{t\to 0}H_{t}(w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime})=\mathbf{1}_{\sigma^{\prime}\times{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-d}}\varphi(w^{\prime},0)e^{-2a^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime}}.

Consider the tropicalization map

S:Yβ€²βˆ©π’°β†’β„+pβˆ’dΓ—(Yβˆ©π’°)S\colon Y^{\prime}\cap{\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-d}\times(Y\cap{\mathcal{U}})

given by S=(βˆ’log⁑|zd+1|,…,βˆ’log⁑|zp|,y)S=(-\log|z_{d+1}|,\dots,-\log|z_{p}|,y). Each fiber Sβˆ’1​(xβ€²β€²,y)S^{-1}(x^{\prime\prime},y) is a torsor for the compact torus (ℝ/β„€)pβˆ’d({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})^{p-d} and hence carries a unique invariant probability measure ρxβ€²β€²,y\rho_{x^{\prime\prime},y}. As tβ†’0t\to 0, the probability measure ρt,wβ€²,xβ€²β€²,y\rho_{t,w^{\prime},x^{\prime\prime},y} converges weakly to ρxβ€²β€²,y\rho_{x^{\prime\prime},y} for any wβ€²βˆˆΟƒβ€²w^{\prime}\in\sigma^{\prime}.

By dominated convergence it follows that

limtβ†’0(2​π)dβˆ’pβ€‹βˆ«Ut(Ο†βˆ˜Log𝒰)​χ​d​μt=βˆ«Οƒβ€²Γ—β„+pβˆ’dΓ—(Yβˆ©π’°)Ο†(wβ€²,0)eβˆ’2aβ€²β€²β‹…xβ€²β€²bΟƒβ€²βˆ’1λσ′(dwβ€²)βŠ—|dxβ€²β€²|βŠ—|dy|2∫fρxβ€²β€²,y=(βˆ«Οƒβ€²Ο†bΟƒβ€²βˆ’1λσ′)(βˆ«β„+pβˆ’deβˆ’2aβ€²β€²β‹…xβ€²β€²|dxβ€²β€²|∫Yβˆ©π’°|dy|2∫fρxβ€²β€²,y).\lim_{t\to 0}(2\pi)^{d-p}\int_{U_{t}}(\varphi\circ\operatorname{Log}_{{\mathcal{U}}})\chi\,d\mu_{t}\\ =\int_{\sigma^{\prime}\times{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-d}\times(Y\cap{\mathcal{U}})}\varphi(w^{\prime},0)e^{-2a^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime}}b_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma^{\prime}}(dw^{\prime})\otimes|dx^{\prime\prime}|\otimes|dy|^{2}\int f\,\rho_{x^{\prime\prime},y}\\ =\left(\int_{\sigma^{\prime}}\varphi b_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{-1}\lambda_{\sigma^{\prime}}\right)\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-d}}e^{-2a^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime}}|dx^{\prime\prime}|\int_{Y\cap{\mathcal{U}}}|dy|^{2}\int f\,\rho_{x^{\prime\prime},y}\right). (3.7)

It only remains to compare the second factor ofΒ (3.7) to the second factor inΒ (3.5). To this end, we again use logarithmic polar coordinates. We have

χ​ResY′⁑(ψ)=fβ€‹βˆi=d+1p|zi|2​aiβˆ’2​|d​zβ€²β€²|2βŠ—|d​y|2.\chi\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime}}(\psi)=f\prod_{i=d+1}^{p}|z_{i}|^{2a_{i}-2}|dz^{\prime\prime}|^{2}\otimes|dy|^{2}. (3.8)

For d<j≀pd<j\leq p, set zj=eβˆ’xj+2​π​i​θjz_{j}=e^{-x_{j}+2\pi i\theta_{j}} with xβ€²β€²βˆˆβ„+pβˆ’dx^{\prime\prime}\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-d} and ΞΈβ€²β€²βˆˆ(ℝ/β„€)pβˆ’d\theta^{\prime\prime}\in({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})^{p-d}. Then

∫Yβ€²βˆ©π’°Ο‡ResYβ€²(ψ)=(2Ο€)pβˆ’dβˆ«β„+pβˆ’deβˆ’2aβ€²β€²β‹…xβ€²β€²|dxβ€²β€²|∫Yβˆ©π’°|dy|2∫fρxβ€²β€²,y,\int_{Y^{\prime}\cap{\mathcal{U}}}\chi\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime}}(\psi)=(2\pi)^{p-d}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p-d}}e^{-2a^{\prime\prime}\cdot x^{\prime\prime}}|dx^{\prime\prime}|\int_{Y\cap{\mathcal{U}}}|dy|^{2}\int f\,\rho_{x^{\prime\prime},y}, (3.9)

which completes the proof ofΒ (3.5), and hence of TheoremΒ 3.4.

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