ScalingStacks

5 Variational method [04DP]

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

5 Variational method

We begin by significantly narrowing the scope:

  • •

    We only consider exact Lagrangians inside Calabi-Yau Stein manifolds. The Stein assumption is meant to simplify Floer theory, at the cost of noncompactness of the ambient space. In particular Hn+1​(X,ℤ)=0H_{n+1}(X,\mathbb{Z})=0 and Hn​(X,ℤ)H_{n}(X,\mathbb{Z}) has no torsion, since Stein manifolds have the topological type of CW complexes of dimension ≤n\leq n.

    The complex Monge-Ampère equation of the Calabi-Yau metric ensures special Lagrangians are area minimizing currents, at the cost of losing genericity. The author thinks the complex Monge-Ampère equation is convenient but not completely indispensable to the Thomas-Yau conjecture, and some related discussions will be given at the end of section 5.1.

  • •

    We impose another mild condition on the Calabi-Yau metric, namely that the regularity scale grows to infinity asymptotically (cf. section 5.2). Its main goal is to prevent the Lagrangians from escaping to infinity.

  • •

    We only consider graded Lagrangians whose phase angle function satisfies a quantitative almost calibrated condition −π/2+ϵ≤θ≤π/2−ϵ.-\pi/2+\epsilon\leq\theta\leq\pi/2-\epsilon. An alternative characterization is that ±Im​Ω≤(cot⁡ϵ)​Re​Ω\pm\text{Im}\Omega\leq(\cot\epsilon)\text{Re}\Omega when restricted to LL, whence the quantitative almost calibrated condition is preserved under weak limits of currents.

The main question we wish to examine from a variational viewpoint is

Question 10.

Fix a Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class in the exact Calabi-Yau manifold (X,ω,Ω)(X,\omega,\Omega), represented by some nontrivial unobstructed exact Lagrangian brane L0L_{0} with phase function −π/2+ϵ<θ<π/2−ϵ-\pi/2+\epsilon<\theta<\pi/2-\epsilon. Denote θ^=arg∫L0Ω∈(−π2+ϵ,π2−ϵ)\hat{\theta}=\arg\int_{L_{0}}\Omega\in(-\frac{\pi}{2}+\epsilon,\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon). When does there exist a possibly singular special Lagrangian representative LL of phase θ^\hat{\theta}, in the same derived Fukaya category class (or under some weaker equivalence relation)?

Remark 5.1.

Making sense of the derived Fukaya category for Lagrangians with weak regularity is part of the question, which seems highly nontrivial. As a basic meta-principle, any two Lagrangian branes in the same derived category class must lie in the same homology class in Hn​(X)H_{n}(X), so the homology class is fixed. This still leaves open some ambiguity on the choice of local system (cf. Remark 6.8), and the question of which singular Lagrangians to include (cf. section 5.3, 5.4).

One possible interpretation of the Thomas-Yau conjecture is

Conjecture 5.1.

(Thomas-Yau existence) Assume the derived Fukaya class of the quantitatively almost calibrated Lagrangian brane L0L_{0} is Thomas-Yau semistable (cf. Definition 3.32). Then there is a special Lagrangian representative in the same Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class (or some weaker SS-equivalence relation, see remark 5.28).

Our limited goal is not to prove this conjecture completely, but to clear up enough easier obstacles in order to pinpoint the deeper issues that need to be resolved. Whenever we make difficult claims that we are yet unable to prove, we will try to at least provide some heuristic reasons.

5.1 Compactness and regularity

5.1.1 Standard geometric measure theory

We will use the standard language of geometric measure theory, see Federer [32] or Morgan [60] for the terminologies. The starting point of the variational approach is that there are foundational compactness theorems in geometric measure theory.

Theorem 5.2.

(Federer-Fleming compactness theorem [32]) Let LiL_{i} be a sequence of mm-dimensional integral currents in a complete Riemannian manifold XX, all supported in a fixed bounded subset, with uniform bounds Mass​(Li)≤C\text{Mass}(L_{i})\leq C and Mass​(∂Li)≤C\text{Mass}(\partial L_{i})\leq C. Then up to subsequence LiL_{i} converges weakly in the current topology to an mm-dimensional integral current LL with the same bounds.

Remark 5.2.

While compactness in the current topology is elementary, the claim that the limit is also an integral current is nontrivial, and can be viewed as a regularity result. The same holds with the Allard compactness theorem below. For our applications, we will always work with closed integral currents, namely ∂Li=0\partial L_{i}=0, which implies ∂L=0\partial L=0 in the limit. To such currents one can associate a homology class.

Remark 5.3.

A more technical version of Federer-Fleming compactness replaces the current topology by the flat norm topology, which is a slightly stronger topology. The flat norm of an integral current TT is

‖T‖f​l​a​t=inf{Mass(A)+Mass(B)|T=A+∂B,A,B are integral currents},\left\lVert T\right\rVert_{flat}=\inf\{\text{Mass}(A)+\text{Mass}(B)|T=A+\partial B,\quad A,B\text{ are integral currents}\},

and the convergence Ti→TT_{i}\to T in this topology simply means ‖T−Ti‖f​l​a​t→0\left\lVert T-T_{i}\right\rVert_{flat}\to 0.

Theorem 5.3.

(Allard compactness [4]) Let LiL_{i} be a sequence of mm-dimensional integer rectifiable varifolds in a complete Riemannian manifold XX, all supported in a fixed bounded subset, with a uniform volume upper bound Mass​(Li)≤C\text{Mass}(L_{i})\leq C and a uniform bound on the first variation ∫Li|H→|≤C\int_{L_{i}}|\vec{H}|\leq C. Then up to subsequence, LiL_{i} converges to an mm-dimensional integer rectifiable varifold LL with the same bounds.

Remark 5.4.

Federer-Fleming and Allard are somewhat complementary. Integral currents are a special kind of distribution valued forms, while varifolds are a special kind of measures on the real Grassmannian bundle G​r​(T​X,m)Gr(TX,m) over XX whose fibres parametrize mm-dimensional planes in the tangent spaces of XX. One key advantage of currents is that they know about orientations, while varifolds do not. The integral current LL recovers the underlying rectifiable subset supp​(L)\text{supp}(L) with multiplicity, so can be canonically associated with a varifold Lv​a​rL^{var}. On the other hand, the natural topology on varifolds (i.e. the topology as measures on G​r​(T​X,m)Gr(TX,m)) remembers tangent plane information, which can be lost under the flat norm convergence of integral currents. Morever, assuming all the varifolds in the sequence are contained in a bounded region, then the total volume mass converges under varifold convergence, but not necessarily so under flat norm convergence. The intuition is that morally the varifold topology detects one more derivative than the flat norm topology. This explains why Allard requires some integral control on the mean curvature, while Federer-Fleming does not.

We shall later use the informal terminology of ‘varifold/current topology’ to refer to convergence simultaneously in the varifold topology and the flat norm topology on integral currents.

Example 5.4.

Inside S2​π1×ℝS^{1}_{2\pi}\times\mathbb{R} with the standard Euclidean metric, take LkL_{k} as the graph over S1S^{1} of the function 1k​sin⁡(k​x)\frac{1}{k}\sin(kx). Then LkL_{k} are Lagrangian currents, which converge to S1S^{1} as currents, but due to the high oscillation, lim infM​a​s​s​(Lk)>M​a​s​s​(S1)\liminf Mass(L_{k})>Mass(S^{1}), and LkL_{k} do not converge to S1S^{1} in the varifold sense. The Lagrangian angle of LkL_{k} is prescribed by tan⁡θ=cos⁡(k​x)\tan\theta=\cos(kx), which converges to zero in the current sense, but not strongly in L1L^{1}.

One of the best regularity theorems in geometric measure theory is

Theorem 5.5.

(Almgren’s big regularity theorem [5]) Let LL be a compactly supported mm-dimensional closed integral current inside a complete Riemannian manifold, which minimizes the volume among all closed integral currents in the same homology class, then away from a closed subset S⊂supp​(L)S\subset\text{supp}(L)with Hausdorff dimension at most m−2m-2, the rectifiable subset supp​(L)∖S\text{supp}(L)\setminus S is a smooth submanifold.

Remark 5.5.

Real codimension two singularity is the optimal result, as easily seen from the examples of singular algebraic curves in ℂ​ℙ2\mathbb{CP}^{2}, which are automatically area minimizers in their homology classes.

Remark 5.6.

Almgren’s big regularity theorem is well known for its monumental size of around 1000 pages. The recent works of Delellis et al. have somewhat simplified the proof, which still remains very nontrivial (cf. [24] for some introduction).

A standard way to apply these theorems, for instance inside a compact ambient space, is to fix the homology class, and minimize the volume among all the integral currents therein. The compactness theorem guarantees the existence of an absolute volume minimizer, and the regularity theorem then improves its regularity to be more like submanifolds. This strategy is highly effective in producing minimal surfaces, but there is no useful criterion5959 59 If there is at least one special Lagrangian within the given homology class, then all absolute minimizers must be special Lagrangians, by an easy calibration argument. This however does not answer how to find the special Lagrangian in the first place. to guarantee the volume minimizers to be special Lagrangians, which is why producing special Lagrangians is a highly nontrivial problem in geometric measure theory.

5.1.2 Exact Lagrangians under weak regularity

We need to ensure the class of Lagrangians in the variational setup is closed under the varifold/current topology. A trivial observation is

Lemma 5.6.

Let LiL_{i} be closed Lagrangian integral currents, and suppose Li→LL_{i}\to L in the current topology, then the Lagrangian/quantitative almost calibratedness conditions pass to the limit.

Let LL be a closed Lagrangian integral current, and fLf_{L} be an L∞L^{\infty} function on LL. We say the exact condition λ=d​fL\lambda=df_{L} holds in the weak sense, if for any compactly supported test (n−1)(n-1)-form χ\chi,

∫Lλ∧χ=−∫LfLdχ.\int_{L}\lambda\wedge\chi=-\int_{L}f_{L}d\chi. (54)

To make sense of the RHS, notice the rectifiability of LL allows the integration of the L∞L^{\infty}-valued nn-form fL​d​χf_{L}d\chi. Equivalently, the normal current fL​Lf_{L}L has distributional derivative χ→∫Lχ∧λ\chi\to\int_{L}\chi\wedge\lambda.

Remark 5.7.

The examples of immersed Lagrangians show that we cannot require fLf_{L} to have a continuous extension to XX, so L∞L^{\infty}-regularity is the best we can impose on fLf_{L}.

Lemma 5.7.

All Lagrangians are assumed to be contained in a fixed bounded region of XX, homologous to L0L_{0}, and are quantitatively almost calibrated. If LiL_{i} is a sequence of exact Lagrangians with potential fLif_{L_{i}}, such that fLif_{L_{i}} are uniformly bounded in L∞L^{\infty}. Then up to subsequence, there is a Lagrangian LL with potential fLf_{L}, such that Li→LL_{i}\to L and fLi​Li→fL​Lf_{L_{i}}L_{i}\to f_{L}L as currents.

Proof.

By Lemma 2.1 the volume mass is uniformly upper bounded. By Federer-Fleming compactness, subsequentially Li→LL_{i}\to L in the flat topology for some Lagrangian integral current LL homologous to L0L_{0}. This implies ∫Lkg​Re​Ω→∫Lg​Re​Ω\int_{L_{k}}g\text{Re}\Omega\to\int_{L}g\text{Re}\Omega for any C∞C^{\infty} test function gg, even though lim infiM​a​s​s​(Li)\liminf_{i}Mass(L_{i}) may be strictly greater than M​a​s​s​(L)Mass(L), as we do not assume varifold convergence.

We focus on a coordinate ball. The nn-currents fLk​Lkf_{L_{k}}L_{k} can be viewed as a collection of (2​nn){2n\choose n} signed measures g↦∫LkfLk​g​d​xi1∧…​d​xing\mapsto\int_{L_{k}}f_{L_{k}}gdx_{i_{1}}\wedge\ldots dx_{i_{n}}. Each of these measures are bounded by the measure

g↦(sup‖fLi‖L∞)​Csin⁡ϵ​∫Lkg​Re​Ω,g\mapsto(\sup\left\lVert f_{L_{i}}\right\rVert_{L^{\infty}})\frac{C}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{L_{k}}g\text{Re}\Omega,

whose total mass is uniformly bounded for all kk. By the weak compactness of measures, subsequentially these signed measures converge, and the limiting signed measures have L∞L^{\infty} Radon-Nykodim derivatives ai1​…​in​(x)a_{i_{1}\ldots i_{n}}(x) with respect to the measure g↦∫Lg​Re​Ωg\mapsto\int_{L}g\text{Re}\Omega:

∫LkfLk​g​d​xi1∧…​d​xin→∫Lg​ai1​…​in​Re​Ω.\int_{L_{k}}f_{L_{k}}gdx_{i_{1}}\wedge\ldots dx_{i_{n}}\to\int_{L}ga_{i_{1}\ldots i_{n}}\text{Re}\Omega.

Thus inside the coordinate ball, the currents fLk​Lkf_{L_{k}}L_{k} converge to limkfLk​Lk\lim_{k}f_{L_{k}}L_{k}:

η↦∫L∑i1<i2​…<inη(∂i1∧…∂in)ai1​…​inReΩ,\eta\mapsto\int_{L}\sum_{i_{1}<i_{2}\ldots<i_{n}}\eta(\partial_{i_{1}}\wedge\ldots\partial_{i_{n}})a_{i_{1}\ldots i_{n}}\text{Re}\Omega,

where η\eta is any test nn-form.

Now LL is an integral current, so ℋn\mathcal{H}^{n}-a.e. y∈supp​(L)y\in\text{supp}(L) there is a well defined tangent space Ty​LT_{y}L and a local integer multiplicity Θ⁡(y)\Theta(y). Recall a blow up limit of an nn-current NN at a point y∈Xy\in X refers to a subsequential limit of the currents on Ty​XT_{y}X as r→0r\to 0:

η↦∫Nrescaley,r∗​η,rescaley,r:x↦xr​ in the geodesic coordinates around y.\eta\mapsto\int_{N}\text{rescale}_{y,r}^{*}\eta,\quad\text{rescale}_{y,r}:x\mapsto\frac{x}{r}\text{ in the geodesic coordinates around $y$}.

For a.e y∈supp​(L)y\in\text{supp}(L), there is a unique blow up limit for the current limkfLk​Lk\lim_{k}f_{L_{k}}L_{k}, which is

η↦∫Ty​L∑η(∂i1∧…∂in)ai1​…​in(y)Θ(y)ReΩ,\eta\mapsto\int_{T_{y}L}\sum\eta(\partial_{i_{1}}\wedge\ldots\partial_{i_{n}})a_{i_{1}\ldots i_{n}}(y)\Theta(y)\text{Re}\Omega,

whose (2​nn){2n\choose n} component signed measures are just constant multiples of the Lebesgue measure on Ty​XT_{y}X.

Observe that the weak formulation (54) passes to the limit:

∫Lλ∧χ=−(limkfLk​Lk)​(𝑑χ).\int_{L}\lambda\wedge\chi=-(\lim_{k}f_{L_{k}}L_{k})(d\chi).

Thus the blow up limit of limkfLk​Lk\lim_{k}f_{L_{k}}L_{k} at a.e. y∈supp​(L)y\in\text{supp}(L) is in fact a closed current. Consequently, the polyvector

∑i1<i2​…<inai1​…​in∂i1∧…∂in\sum_{i_{1}<i_{2}\ldots<i_{n}}a_{i_{1}\ldots i_{n}}\partial_{i_{1}}\wedge\ldots\partial_{i_{n}}

must be a pure tensor lying in Λn​Ty​L⊂Λn​Ty​X\Lambda^{n}T_{y}L\subset\Lambda^{n}T_{y}X. Hence

limkfLk​Lk=fL​L\lim_{k}f_{L_{k}}L_{k}=f_{L}L

for some L∞L^{\infty}-function fLf_{L}. ∎

Continuity of the Solomon functional

Inside Stein manifolds, the Solomon functional can be defined for any Lagrangian LL with potential which is homologous to L0L_{0}, without further Floer theoretic inputs: the formula (20) makes sense after choosing any bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C} with ∂𝒞=L−L0\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L_{0} in the sense of currents, and the choice does not matter.

Lemma 5.8.

(Continuity of the Solomon functional) All Lagrangians are assumed to be contained in a fixed bounded region of XX, homologous to L0L_{0}, and are quantitatively almost calibrated. Suppse LiL_{i} is a sequence of Lagrangian integral currents with potential fLif_{L_{i}}, such that Li→LL_{i}\to L in the flat norm, and fLi​Lif_{L_{i}}L_{i} converge to fL​Lf_{L}L as currents, then the Solomon functionals converge: 𝒮⁡(Li)→𝒮⁡(L)\mathcal{S}(L_{i})\to\mathcal{S}(L).

Proof.

Since fLi​Lif_{L_{i}}L_{i} converges to fL​Lf_{L}L as currents,

∫LifLi​Ω→∫LfL​Ω.\int_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}\Omega\to\int_{L}f_{L}\Omega.

It suffices to justify ∫𝒞iλ∧Ω→∫𝒞λ∧Ω,\int_{\mathcal{C}_{i}}\lambda\wedge\Omega\to\int_{\mathcal{C}}\lambda\wedge\Omega, where ∂𝒞i=Li−L0\partial\mathcal{C}_{i}=L_{i}-L_{0}, and ∂𝒞=L−L0\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L_{0}.

Now the flat norm convergence gives Li−L=Ai+∂BiL_{i}-L=A_{i}+\partial B_{i} for some integral currents Ai,BiA_{i},B_{i}, with M​a​s​s​(Ai)+M​a​s​s​(Bi)→0Mass(A_{i})+Mass(B_{i})\to 0. Since [Li]=[L]=[L0]∈Hn​(X)[L_{i}]=[L]=[L_{0}]\in H_{n}(X), the homology class of AiA_{i} is zero. A version of the isoperimetric theorem (cf. Prop. 5.11 below) then says Ai=∂Bi′A_{i}=\partial B_{i}^{\prime} with M​a​s​s​(Bi′)≤C​M​a​s​s​(Ai)(n+1)/n→0Mass(B_{i}^{\prime})\leq CMass(A_{i})^{(n+1)/n}\to 0. Without loss of generality we absorb Bi′B_{i}^{\prime} into BiB_{i}. Then we can simply choose 𝒞i=𝒞+Bi\mathcal{C}_{i}=\mathcal{C}+B_{i}, which is legitimate since it satisfies ∂𝒞i=Li−L0\partial\mathcal{C}_{i}=L_{i}-L_{0}. The claim follows by

|∫Biλ∧Ω|≤C​M​a​s​s​(Bi)→0.|\int_{B_{i}}\lambda\wedge\Omega|\leq CMass(B_{i})\to 0.

∎

Robustness of potential clustering

We revisit the potential clustering property (cf. section 3.8.3) from the geometric measure theory perspective. Assume as always that the Lagrangian integral current LL is quantitatively almost calibrated, homologous to L0L_{0}, and equipped with Lagrangian potential fLf_{L}. Given constants N∈ℕ,A∈ℝ+N\in\mathbb{N},A\in\mathbb{R}_{+}, we say LL satisfies (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering, if

L=∑1NLi,fL​L=∑1NfLi​Li,L=\sum_{1}^{N}L_{i},\quad f_{L}L=\sum_{1}^{N}f_{L_{i}}L_{i},

for quantitatively almost calibrated, closed Lagrangian integral currents LiL_{i} with potential fLif_{L_{i}}, contained inside the support of LL, such that the oscillation of the Lagrangian potentials have uniform bounds

supLifLi−infLifLi≤A,\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}-\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}\leq A,

while for any i>ji>j,

supLjfLj≤infLifLi.\sup_{L_{j}}f_{L_{j}}\leq\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}.

Without loss of generality, we assume supL0fL0−infL0fL0≤A\sup_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}}-\inf_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}}\leq A for the fixed Lagrangian L0L_{0}.

Remark 5.8.

Here we allow LiL_{i} to have overlapping supports. For instance, it is possible for L1=L2L_{1}=L_{2} as currents, but fL2f_{L_{2}} and fL1f_{L_{1}} differ by a constant.

We will later be interested in uniform upper bounds on N,AN,A. For now, we observe the robustness under limits:

Corollary 5.9.

Fix the choice of N,AN,A. Suppose we are given a sequence of Lagrangians L(j)L^{(j)} with potential satisfying (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering, and assume Li(j)→LiL_{i}^{(j)}\to L_{i} as currents for 1≤i≤N1\leq i\leq N, all fLi(j)f_{L_{i}}^{(j)} have uniform L∞L^{\infty} bounds, and fLi(j)​L(j)→fLi​Lif_{L_{i}^{(j)}}L^{(j)}\to f_{L_{i}}L_{i} as currents. Then the limit L=∑1NLiL=\sum_{1}^{N}L_{i} with its potential fLf_{L} also satisfies (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering.

Proof.

Notice a potential bound such as fL≥cf_{L}\geq c can be characterized by the positivity of the measure g↦∫L(fL−c)​g​Re​Ωg\mapsto\int_{L}(f_{L}-c)g\text{Re}\Omega. This characterization is robust under current convergence, so

supLifLi≤lim supjsupLi(j)fLi(j),infLifLi≥lim infjinfLi(j)fLi(j),\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}\leq\limsup_{j}\sup_{L_{i}^{(j)}}f_{L_{i}^{(j)}},\quad\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}\geq\liminf_{j}\inf_{L_{i}^{(j)}}f_{L_{i}^{(j)}},

hence the potential clustering bounds pass to the limit. ∎

5.1.3 Almgren’s regularity in the almost Calabi-Yau setting?

The main reason to impose the Calabi-Yau condition is so that any special Lagrangian closed integral current is an absolute volume minimizer among all closed integral currents in the same homology class, by the calibration inequality (2). If we believe Thomas-Yau conjecture to be valid more generally for almost Calabi-Yau ambient structures, with

ωnn!=(−1)n⁡(n−1)​(−12)n​e2​ρ​Ω∧Ω¯,\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}=(-1)^{n(n-1)}(\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2})^{n}e^{2\rho}\Omega\wedge\overline{\Omega},

then we are naturally motivated to ask if Almgren’s regularity extends to special Lagrangians in this setting:

Question 11.

Suppose LL is a compactly supported closed integral current inside an almost Calabi-Yau manifold, which is a special Lagrangian in the sense of (1). Does it imply the support of LL is smooth away from a Hausdorff codimension two subset?

The following observations, left as easy exercises, are indications that almost Calabi-Yau manifolds behave similarly as Calabi-Yau manifolds.

  • •

    By a variant of the calibration inequality (2), special Lagrangians minimize the weighted volume

    ∫Le−ρ​𝑑v​o​lL≥|∫LΩ|\int_{L}e^{-\rho}dvol_{L}\geq|\int_{L}\Omega|

    within its homology class.

  • •

    Under the smoothness assumption, the mean curvature of a Lagrangian submanifold with phase function θ\theta satisfies the formula

    H→=−∇⟂ρ+J∇θ,\vec{H}=-\nabla^{\perp}\rho+J\nabla\theta,

    where ∇⟂\nabla^{\perp} means the normal projection of the gradient, and ∇θ\nabla\theta is the derivative of θ\theta along LL. Thus for smooth special Lagrangians in a bounded region, we have the a priori bound |H→|≤C|\vec{H}|\leq C.

5.2 Quantitative almost calibratedness

One major advantage of the quantitative almost calibrated condition is that within a fixed homology class of Lagrangians, it guarantees an a priori volume upper bound (cf. Lemma 2.1). We shall explain that, under very mild asymptotic conditions on the ambient Calabi-Yau manifolds, it also guarantees that the Lagrangian remains within a bounded region. As such, the Federer-Fleming compactness applies automatically, and Allard compactness applies under the additional hypothesis of a uniform bound on ∫L|H→|\int_{L}|\vec{H}|. We also discuss a number of instructive but not particularly difficult consequences of quantitative almost calibratedness.

Remark 5.9.

The arguments in this section are adaptions of Neves [63]. They can also be easily adapted to the almost Calabi-Yau setting under mild conditions on the volume density.

As a preliminary, we will say the regularity scale near a given point PP on the Calabi-Yau manifold is at least O⁡(R)O(R), if PP is contained in a complex coordinate ball with Euclidean radius at least RR, on which Ω=f​d​z1∧…​d​zn\Omega=fdz_{1}\wedge\ldots dz_{n}, and6060 60 We will actually only use the metric uniform equivalence. But for Calabi-Yau metrics, the higher derivative estimates are in any event implied by metric equivalence, after shrinking the balls slightly, by Evans-Krylov theory.

C−1​δi​j≤gi​j¯≤C​δi​j,|∂kgi​j¯|≤C⁡(k)​R−k,|f−1|≤12,|∂kf|≤C​R−k.C^{-1}\delta_{ij}\leq g_{i\bar{j}}\leq C\delta_{ij},\quad|\partial^{k}g_{i\bar{j}}|\leq C(k)R^{-k},\quad|f-1|\leq\frac{1}{2},\quad|\partial^{k}f|\leq CR^{-k}. (55)

From now on we will assume the regularity scale tends to infinity for P→∞P\to\infty. This is a very mild condition on the Calabi-Yau manifold, for instance satisfied by asymptotically conical Calabi-Yaus.

Remark 5.10.

This asymptotic condition is essentially the weakest that can prevent the almost calibrated Lagrangian in a given homology class from escaping to infinity. For instance, if LL is a special Lagrangian in XX, then L×S1L\times S^{1} is a special Lagrangian in the product X×T∗​S1X\times T^{*}S^{1}, which can obviously be translated in the ℝ\mathbb{R} direction to escape to infinity, albeit not preserving the Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class. One can still hope to obstruct escaping to infinity using Floer theory, but then incorporating singular Lagrangians requires more foundational work.

Isoperimetric inequality

Lemma 5.10.

(Isoperimetric inequality cf. [63, Lem 3.10]) Let LL be a closed Lagrangian integral current in (X,ω,Ω)(X,\omega,\Omega), and consider a Euclidean coordinate ball B2​RB_{2R} on which the regularity scale is at least O⁡(R)O(R). Assume the quantitative almost calibrated condition cos⁡θ≥sin⁡ϵ\cos\theta\geq\sin\epsilon. Then there is a universal constant CC depending only on ϵ,n\epsilon,n and the metric uniform equivalence constant in (55), so that

M​a​s​s​(A)(n−1)/n≤C​M​a​s​s​(∂A)Mass(A)^{(n-1)/n}\leq CMass(\partial A)

for all closed subsets AA of supp​(L)∩BR\text{supp}(L)\cap B_{R} with rectifiable boundary. Here the Hausdorff measures are computed using the Calabi-Yau metric.

Proof.

The isoperimetric theorem [71, Thm 6.1] guarantees the existence of an integral current A′A^{\prime} supported in BRB_{R} such that ∂A′=∂A\partial A^{\prime}=\partial A and for which

M​a​s​s​(A′)(n−1)/n≤C​M​a​s​s​(∂A).Mass(A^{\prime})^{(n-1)/n}\leq CMass(\partial A).

Notice the metric uniform equivalence means we do not need to be careful to distinguish the Hausdorff measure for the Euclidean metric and the Calabi-Yau metric. Let TT denote the cone over the current A−A′A-A^{\prime}, then ∂T=A−A′\partial T=A-A^{\prime}, and thus by the quantitative calibrated condition,

M​a​s​s​(A)≤1sin⁡ϵ​∫ARe​Ω=1sin⁡ϵ​∫A′Re​Ω+1sin⁡ϵ​∫∂TRe​Ω≤1sin⁡ϵ​M​a​s​s​(A′)+1sin⁡ϵ​∫Td​Re​Ω≤1sin⁡ϵ​C​M​a​s​s​(∂A)n/(n−1),\begin{split}&Mass(A)\leq\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{A}\text{Re}\Omega=\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{A^{\prime}}\text{Re}\Omega+\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{\partial T}\text{Re}\Omega\\ \leq&\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}Mass(A^{\prime})+\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{T}d\text{Re}\Omega\leq\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}CMass(\partial A)^{n/(n-1)},\end{split}

which is the isoperimetric inequality. ∎

Remark 5.11.

The standard isoperimetric theorem inside the Euclidean space [71, Thm 6.1] does not state supp​(A′)⊂BR\text{supp}(A^{\prime})\subset B_{R}. Once we have found some A′A^{\prime} with ∂A′=∂A\partial A^{\prime}=\partial A with mass control, we can pushforward by a Lipschitz retraction map F:ℝ2​n→B1F:\mathbb{R}^{2n}\to B_{1}:

F⁡(x)={x,x∈BR,R​x|x|,x∈ℝ2​n∖BR.F(x)=\begin{cases}x,\quad x\in B_{R},\\ \frac{Rx}{|x|},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}\setminus B_{R}.\end{cases}

Replacing A′A^{\prime} by F∗​A′F_{*}A^{\prime}, the mass cannot increase, and ∂F∗​(A′)=F∗​(∂A′)=F∗​(∂A)=∂A\partial F_{*}(A^{\prime})=F_{*}(\partial A^{\prime})=F_{*}(\partial A)=\partial A, and we have ensured the support is contained in BRB_{R}.

The following version of the isoperimetric theorem should be well known to experts, but for lack of a reference we include a proof below.

Proposition 5.11.

(Isoperimetric theorem on complete manifolds) Let XX be a complete Riemannian manifold, and ∂A\partial A be an mm-dimensional exact integral current supported in a fixed bounded open subset U⊂XU\subset X. Then there is an integral current A′A^{\prime} supported in a fixed large bounded subset of XX, with ∂A=∂A′\partial A=\partial A^{\prime} and

M​a​s​s​(A′)≤Const⋅min⁡{M​a​s​s​(∂A)(m+1)/m,M​a​s​s​(∂A)}.Mass(A^{\prime})\leq\text{Const}\cdot\min\{Mass(\partial A)^{(m+1)/m},Mass(\partial A)\}.
Proof.

We first isometrically embed XX into an ambient Euclidean space ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N}, so AA can be regarded as an integral current compactly supported in XX. Fix a small number ρ0>0\rho_{0}>0 such that over UU the ρ0\rho_{0}-neighbourhood in ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N} is isomorphic to the normal bundle, so there is a smooth retraction map FF back to UU. The Lipschitz norm of FF is approximately one.

Applying the deformation theorem for ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N} [71, section 5.3] to the current ∂A\partial A, with a parameter ρ≤ρ0\rho\leq\rho_{0} to be fixed, we can write

∂A=P+∂R,\partial A=P+\partial R,

where P,RP,R are integral currents inside ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N}, supported in the O⁡(ρ)O(\rho) neighbourhood of supp​(∂A)\text{supp}(\partial A), with

M​a​s​s​(R)≤C​ρ​M​a​s​s​(∂A),M​a​s​s​(P)≤C​M​a​s​s​(∂A),Mass(R)\leq C\rho Mass(\partial A),\quad Mass(P)\leq CMass(\partial A),

where the constant CC depends only on N,mN,m. Morever, PP is an integral linear sum of mm-dimensional faces in the standard grid decomposition of ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N} with cube size ρ\rho. We now push forward via FF:

F∗​P+∂F∗​R=F∗​(∂A)=∂A,F_{*}P+\partial F_{*}R=F_{*}(\partial A)=\partial A,

since ∂A⊂U⊂X\partial A\subset U\subset X is fixed by FF. Note that F∗​P,F∗​RF_{*}P,F_{*}R both live inside UU, and their mass bounds are essentially the same as P,RP,R respectively.

Suppose first that M​a​s​s​(∂A)≪1Mass(\partial A)\ll 1. If PP is nonzero, then by the grid description of PP,

ρm≤M​a​s​s​(P)≤C​M​a​s​s​(∂A)\rho^{m}\leq Mass(P)\leq CMass(\partial A)

So by choosing ρ=2​(C​M​a​s​s​(∂A))1/m\rho=2(CMass(\partial A))^{1/m} in the above, we force P=0P=0, so ∂A=∂F∗​R\partial A=\partial F_{*}R, with mass bound M​a​s​s​(F∗​R)≤const​M​a​s​s​(∂A)(m+1)/mMass(F_{*}R)\leq\text{const}Mass(\partial A)^{(m+1)/m}, so it suffices to take A′=F∗​RA^{\prime}=F_{*}R.

Now suppose M​a​s​s​(∂A)≳1Mass(\partial A)\gtrsim 1, then we choose ρ=ρ0\rho=\rho_{0}. Without loss of generality, we can replace ∂A\partial A by F∗​PF_{*}P, and pretend R=0R=0. We know

  • •

    PP is an integral linear combination of grid cube faces, where all the cubes lie in a bounded region of a fixed grid,

  • •

    F∗​PF_{*}P is an exact current on XX.

The set of all such PP form a finitely generated abelian group, which by classification is isomorphic to the direct sum of ⊕1rℤei\oplus_{1}^{r}\mathbb{Z}e_{i} and a finite abelian group. For any given element

P=∑ai​ei+finite group part,P=\sum a_{i}e_{i}+\text{finite group part},

the linear coefficients aia_{i} of eie_{i} for i=1,…​ri=1,\ldots r are bounded by |ai|≲M​a​s​s​(P)≲M​a​s​s​(∂A)|a_{i}|\lesssim Mass(P)\lesssim Mass(\partial A). Each eie_{i} gives rise to an exact simplicial chain F∗​eiF_{*}e_{i} inside XX, which is the boundary of a finite mass integral current QiQ_{i}. Thus

M​a​s​s​(∑1rai​Qi)≤∑1r|ai|​M​a​s​s​(Qi)≤const⋅M​a​s​s​(∂A).Mass(\sum_{1}^{r}a_{i}Q_{i})\leq\sum_{1}^{r}|a_{i}|Mass(Q_{i})\leq\text{const}\cdot Mass(\partial A).

The finite group part gives rise to another simplicical chain inside XX which is the boundary of some finite mass integral current. Thus we have produced an integral current A′A^{\prime} with ∂A′=∂A\partial A^{\prime}=\partial A, and mass bound

M​a​s​s​(A′)≤C⁡(M​a​s​s​(∂A))+C≤const ​M​a​s​s​(∂A).Mass(A^{\prime})\leq C(Mass(\partial A))+C\leq\text{const }Mass(\partial A).

since we are in the M​a​s​s​(∂A)≳1Mass(\partial A)\gtrsim 1 case. ∎

Volume monotonicity and lower bound

Corollary 5.12.

(Volume lower bound) If PP is in the support of LL, then there is a uniform lower bound on the volume of LL inside Eulidean coordinate balls of radius less than RR:

Volg​(L∩B⁡(P,r))≥C−1​rn,∀r≤R.\text{Vol}_{g}(L\cap B(P,r))\geq C^{-1}r^{n},\quad\forall r\leq R. (56)
Proof.

Let f⁡(r)=ℋn​(L∩B⁡(r))>0f(r)=\mathcal{H}^{n}(L\cap B(r))>0, then ff is increasing in rr, and for a.e. 0<r<R0<r<R, by the coarea formula,

f′​(r)=∫∂B⁡(r)∩L1|∇r|​d​ℋn−1≥C−1​ℋn−1​(∂B⁡(r)∩L)≥C−1​f​(r)(n−1)/n.f^{\prime}(r)=\int_{\partial B(r)\cap L}\frac{1}{|\nabla r|}d\mathcal{H}^{n-1}\geq C^{-1}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial B(r)\cap L)\geq C^{-1}f(r)^{(n-1)/n}.

The last inequality is the isoperimetric inequality. Thus dd​r​f1/n≥C−1,\frac{d}{dr}f^{1/n}\geq C^{-1}, whence we have the volume lower bound f​(r)1/n≥C−1​rf(r)^{1/n}\geq C^{-1}r. ∎

Remark 5.12.

Volume lower bounds like (56) are familiar in minimal surface theory, but usually require some integral bound on the mean curvature. Notably, here we need no such assumption; the quantitative almost calibrated condition only concerns the antiderivative θ\theta of H→=J∇θ\vec{H}=J\nabla\theta.

No escape to spatial infinity

Corollary 5.13.

Assume near the infinity of XX, the regularity scale grows to infinity. Fix the homology class of the quantitatively almost calibrated Lagrangian LL. Then LL is contained in a fixed compact subset of XX.

Proof.

From Lemma 2.1 there is an a priori volume bound Vol​(L)≤C\text{Vol}(L)\leq C. But if PP is in the support of LL, then the regularity scale of XX near PP is bounded by

Rn≤C​Vol​(L∩B⁡(R))≤C,R^{n}\leq C\text{Vol}(L\cap B(R))\leq C,

whence PP must remain in a fixed compact subset. ∎

Nontriviality of homology classes

Corollary 5.14.

(Nontriviality of homology classes) There is a lower bound ∫LRe​Ω≥C−1\int_{L}\text{Re}\Omega\geq C^{-1} depending only on the ambient Calabi-Yau and the almost calibratedness constant ϵ\epsilon. Here we do not a priori specify the homology class of LL.

Proof.

The asymptotic hypothesis on the regularity scale implies in particular that the regularity scale has a global lower bound on XX. This gives a uniform lower bound on Vol​(L)\text{Vol}(L), which by the quantitative almost calibratedness gives a lower bound on the homological integral ∫LRe​Ω\int_{L}\text{Re}\Omega. ∎

The significance is that in a variational setup to find special Lagrangians among certain Lagrangian currents in the fixed homology class [L0][L_{0}], it may happen that the Lagrangian breaks into several connected components, each given by a closed Lagrangian current LiL_{i} with ∑i∫LiRe​Ω=∫LRe​Ω\sum_{i}\int_{L_{i}}\text{Re}\Omega=\int_{L}\text{Re}{\Omega}. The nontriviality of each homology class then puts an upper bound on the number of connected components. Morever, each LiL_{i} would inherit a volume upper bound from LL. Since all Lagrangians are contained in a fixed compact region, Poincaré duality easily gives an upper bound on the homology classes of LiL_{i}:

‖[Li]‖Hn​(X)≤C​Vol​(Li)≤C.\left\lVert[L_{i}]\right\rVert_{H_{n}(X)}\leq C\text{Vol}(L_{i})\leq C.

Combining the above, only finitely many homology classes, multiplicities, and number of components can appear in a given variational problem.

5.2.1 Intrinsic distance bound and potential clustering

Suppose LL is a smooth immersed Lagrangian, then it inherits a Riemannian metric from the restriction of the Calabi-Yau metric, so we can speak of the intrinsic distance function on LL. Instead of extrinsic balls such as B⁡(P,r)B(P,r), we can talk about intrinsic balls B^​(P,r)\hat{B}(P,r). A key distinction is that intrinsic distance does not need to extend to a continuous function on X×XX\times X, the prototypical example being the union of two embedded Lagrangians, whose domains are disjoint, but whose images in XX intersect. Clearly, the intrinsic distance bounds extrinsic geodesic distance, so B^​(P,r)\hat{B}(P,r) is always contained in an extrinsic geodesic ball of radius rr, but the converse is far from true. The intrinsic distance between two distinct connected components would simply be infinity. One can think of intrinsic distance as a quantitative measurement of connectedness.

As usual, the regularity scale on XX grows to infinity asymptotically by assumption, so the regularity scale has a global lower bound. The following lemma has the same proof as Cor. 5.12. (The essence of this argument also appears in Neves [63, Lem 3.9]).

Lemma 5.15.

(Intrinsic ball volume lower bound) Let LL be a smooth immersed compact Lagrangian in XX, satisfying the quantitative almost calibrated condition. For any PP in the support of LL, there is a uniform bound

Vol​(B^​(P,r)∩L)≥C−1​rn,r≤1.\text{Vol}(\hat{B}(P,r)\cap L)\geq C^{-1}r^{n},\quad r\leq 1.
Corollary 5.16.

(Intrinsic diameter bound) Assume further that the smooth, quantitatively almost calibrated compact Lagrangian LL has connected domain. Then within a fixed homology class, the intrinsic distance of LL has a uniform upper bound.

Proof.

Let d=d​i​s​t​(P,P′)≥N=[d]d=dist(P,P^{\prime})\geq N=[d] be the intrinsic diameter of LL. By connectedness, we can find P1,…​PNP_{1},\ldots P_{N} with d​i​s​t​(P,Pi)=idist(P,P_{i})=i. Now the intrinsic balls B^​(Pi,12)\hat{B}(P_{i},\frac{1}{2}) are disjoint, but each takes up a nontrivial amount of volume ≥C−1\geq C^{-1}. Thus

C−1​N≤Vol​(L)≤1sin⁡ϵ​∫LRe​(Ω)≤C,C^{-1}N\leq\text{Vol}(L)\leq\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{L}\text{Re}(\Omega)\leq C,

so there is an a priori bound on NN, hence on dd. ∎

Corollary 5.17.

(Potential oscillation bound) Assume LL is an exact, immersed, compact Lagrangian, satisfying the almost calibrated condition, such that the Lagrangian potential fLf_{L} has connected range. Then the potential fLf_{L} has an a priori bound

supLfL−infLfL≤C.\sup_{L}f_{L}-\inf_{L}f_{L}\leq C.
Proof.

Given any P,P′P,P^{\prime} on LL, we write the potential as a line integral of the Liouville 1-form

fL​(P)−fL​(P′)=∫P′Pλ≤‖λ‖C0​𝑑i​s​t​(P,P′).f_{L}(P)-f_{L}(P^{\prime})=\int_{P^{\prime}}^{P}\lambda\leq\left\lVert\lambda\right\rVert_{C^{0}}dist(P,P^{\prime}).

Thus the intrinsic ball volume lower bound implies that if aa lies in the range of fLf_{L}, then

Vol({|fL−a|<12})≥C−1.\text{Vol}(\{|f_{L}-a|<\frac{1}{2}\})\geq C^{-1}.

The range of fLf_{L} is by assumption a closed interval. If the interval has length ≥N\geq N, then we can find NN distinct values of aa with disjoint {|fL−a|<12}\{|f_{L}-a|<\frac{1}{2}\}, so

C−1​N≤Vol​(L)≤1sin⁡ϵ​∫LRe​(Ω)≤C,C^{-1}N\leq\text{Vol}(L)\leq\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{L}\text{Re}(\Omega)\leq C,

This provides an a priori bound on NN, hence on the potential oscillation. ∎

Corollary 5.18.

Assume LL is an exact, immersed, compact Lagrangian, satisfying the almost calibrated condition, then it satisfies (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering (cf. section 5.1.2) for some N,AN,A with uniform bounds. Morever, if LL carries an unobstructed brane structure, then the potential clustering property is consistent with the twisted complex interpretation.

Proof.

By Lemma 6.3, a general immersed Lagrangian can be decomposed into a union of Lagrangians LiL_{i} such that the ranges of the potentials fLif_{L_{i}} are connected, and any bounding cochain structure naturally produces a twisted complex. The oscillation of each LiL_{i} is bounded in terms of the quantitative almost calibration condition, and the ambient features of XX. Morever, the number of Lagrangian components is also a priori bounded. ∎

As a notable consequence, we obtain the uniform energy bound on the holomorphic curves (cf. Prop. 3.41).

Remark 5.13.

Although it is unclear how to make sense of the intrinsic distance on a general Lagrangian integral current, mildly singular Lagrangians (for instance with local conical singularities) do have a sensible notion of intrinsic distance, and the arguments in this section extend practically to all non-pathological examples, covering all Lagrangians that appear in Joyce’s LMCF program. Furthermore, the potential clustering is robust under limits (cf. Cor. 5.9). As such, we believe it holds for all Lagrangians relevant to our variational program (cf. the class ℒ\mathcal{L} in section 5.3 below).

5.2.2 Bounded part of the Solomon functional revisited

In section 3.8.3, we discussed a Floer theoretic method to bound the difference between the Solomon functional and the elementary functional. The following alternative method is based on the homological nature of the Solomon functional (20), and has a more geometric measure theory flavour. Holomorphic curves do not feature in this approach, so the automatic transversality and the positivity conditions are not needed, and in fact the discussion works in the weak setting of varifolds and currents. It is vital to this approach that Hn+1​(X)=0H_{n+1}(X)=0 for Stein manifolds, so no homological ambiguity can arise for the bordism current.

Proposition 5.19.

Assume the Lagrangian LL with potential fLf_{L} is quantitatively almost calibrated, homologous to L0L_{0}, and satisfies (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering. The elementary functional (45) makes sense verbatim, with no smoothness assumptions. Then |𝒮​(L)−𝒮¯​(L)||\mathcal{S}(L)-\bar{\mathcal{S}}(L)| has a uniform upper bound independent of LL.

Proof.

We know L−L0L-L_{0} is homologous to zero in XX, and contained in a bounded subset of XX by Cor. 5.13. By a version of the isoperimetric theorem (cf. Prop. 5.11), we can find some compactly supported integral current 𝒞\mathcal{C} with ∂𝒞=L−L0\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L_{0}, with mass bound

Mass​(𝒞)≤const⋅min⁡{Mass​(L−L0)(n+1)/n,Mass​(L−L0)}.\text{Mass}(\mathcal{C})\leq\text{const}\cdot\min\{\text{Mass}(L-L_{0})^{(n+1)/n},\text{Mass}(L-L_{0})\}.

This 𝒞\mathcal{C} has no relation to holomorphic curves. The quantitative almost calibratedness implies a volume bound on LL (cf. Lemma 2.1), hence Mass​(𝒞)\text{Mass}(\mathcal{C}) is a priori bounded. The homological nature of the Solomon functional (20) gives

𝒮⁡(L)=∫LfL​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)−∫L0fL0​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)−Im​∫𝒞λ∧e−i​θ^​Ω.\mathcal{S}(L)=\int_{L}f_{L}\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)-\int_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}}\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)-\text{Im}\int_{\mathcal{C}}\lambda\wedge e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega.

The mass bound then implies

|∫𝒞λ∧e−i​θ^​Ω|≤C​‖λ‖C0​‖Ω‖C0​Mass​(𝒞)≤const.|\int_{\mathcal{C}}\lambda\wedge e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega|\leq C\left\lVert\lambda\right\rVert_{C^{0}}\left\lVert\Omega\right\rVert_{C^{0}}\text{Mass}(\mathcal{C})\leq\text{const}.

Here since LL is contained in a bounded region, the terms λ\lambda and Ω\Omega are bounded. Finally, using the potential clustering bound,

|∫LfL​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)−∫L0fL0​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)−𝒮¯​(L)|≤A⁡(∫L|Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)|+∫L0|Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)|)≤A⁡(Mass​(L)+Mass​(L0))≤2​Asin⁡ϵ​∫L0Re​Ω.\begin{split}&|\int_{L}f_{L}\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)-\int_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}}\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)-\bar{\mathcal{S}}(L)|\\ &\leq A(\int_{L}|\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)|+\int_{L_{0}}|\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)|)\\ &\leq A(\text{Mass}(L)+\text{Mass}(L_{0}))\leq\frac{2A}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{L_{0}}\text{Re}\Omega.\end{split}

Combining the above shows the a priori bound on |𝒮​(L)−𝒮¯​(L)||\mathcal{S}(L)-\bar{\mathcal{S}}(L)|. ∎

5.3 Variational strategy

The variational strategy to find special Lagrangians is the following:

  • •

    Find a suitable subset ℒ\mathcal{L} among all the quantitatively almost calibrated, exact Lagrangian integral currents homologous to L0L_{0}. The class ℒ\mathcal{L} is closed in the varifold/current topology. It is very desirable to ensure Allard compactness and Federer-Fleming compactness both apply to ℒ\mathcal{L}.

  • •

    Extend enough of Floer theory from the smooth setting to Lagrangian currents. Morally, the class ℒ\mathcal{L} consists of those Lagrangians that can be equipped with unobstructed brane structures in some weak sense, all isomorphic to L0L_{0} in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X).

  • •

    When the Lagrangian is equipped with the potential fLf_{L}, the additive constant freedom of fLf_{L} is a source of non-compactness, which affects 𝒮\mathcal{S}. We need to ultimately match up the asymptotic behaviour of 𝒮\mathcal{S} with the Floer theoretic obstructions. In other words, the role of stability conditions is to ensure the properness of the Solomon functional.

  • •

    Once the Solomon functional is proper, we will follow the direct minimization strategy to find its minimum. We need to justify that the minimum LL must be a special Lagrangian closed integral current, and then Almgren regularity will be able to ensure smoothness away from codimension two. Furthermore, we need a sufficiently robust version of the Thomas-Yau uniqueness argument to prove that the special Lagrangian representative is unique.

The class ℒ\mathcal{L} is a balance between two requirements: the approximability by sufficiently smooth objects, and the existence of sufficiently many competitors. A moral definition of ℒ\mathcal{L} is:

  • •

    Among all the quantitatively almost calibrated, exact Lagrangian integral currents homologous to L0L_{0}, we include all sufficiently smooth Lagrangians (eg. immersed, T2T^{2}-cones singularities, etc) which admit unobstructed brane structures isomorphic to L0L_{0} in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X).

  • •

    Then take the closure under the varifold/current topology.

Remark 5.14.

Joyce’s LMCF is expected to preserve the exactness, the quantitative almost calibrated condition, and the unobstructedness of the brane structure, so sufficiently smooth objects in ℒ\mathcal{L} should remain in ℒ\mathcal{L} under Joyce’s LMCF. It is interesting to ask when the flow also preserves the positivity condition on the bordism current.

While at present several ingredients are missing, if this program can be carried through, it would prove the existence of special Lagrangians under the assumption of Thomas-Yau semistability (cf. Definition 3.32).

LpL^{p}-Smoothing property and Joyce’s LMCF

Allard compactness requires an a priori bound ∫L|H→|≤C\int_{L}|\vec{H}|\leq C, which cannot be implied by the quantitative almost calibrated condition, since the mean curvature involves one more derivative than the Lagrangian angle. However, for the purpose of our variational strategy, it is enough to ensure any minimization sequence of 𝒮\mathcal{S} can be replaced by a sequence with ∫Li|H→|≤C\int_{L_{i}}|\vec{H}|\leq C.

Conjecture 5.20.

(LpL^{p}-smoothing property) There exists p≥1p\geq 1 and a uniform constant CC, such that for any L∈ℒL\in\mathcal{L}, we can find L′∈ℒL^{\prime}\in\mathcal{L} with 𝒮⁡(L′)≤𝒮⁡(L)\mathcal{S}(L^{\prime})\leq\mathcal{S}(L), and ∫L′|H→|p≤C\int_{L^{\prime}}|\vec{H}|^{p}\leq C.

Remark 5.15.

This is called a ‘smoothing property’ because L′L^{\prime} quantitatively improves the regularity of LL. It does not suggest L′L^{\prime} is smooth, and indeed we expect the special Lagrangians which minimize 𝒮\mathcal{S} may have codimension two singularity. Since the volume is a priori bounded, the Hölder inequality shows that the LpL^{p}-smoothing property is stronger for bigger pp, and in particular L2L^{2}-smoothing implies L1L^{1}-smoothing.

We think the smoothing property may be quite deep, and our limited attempt here is to explain how it relates to Joyce’s LMCF program, which suggests the smoothing property may hold with p=2p=2. Recall the defining feature of the Solomon functional is its variation property under exact isotopies among unobstructed objects:

δ​𝒮=∫Lh​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω),\delta\mathcal{S}=\int_{L}h\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega),

which holds under sufficient smoothness assumptions. Under a sufficiently smooth LMCF (Lt)(L_{t}) in a Calabi-Yau manifold, the Lagrangians evolve by the local Hamiltonian function −θt-\theta_{t} up to an inconsequential additive constant (cf. section 4.1), so 𝒮\mathcal{S} evolves by

∂t𝒮=−∫Lt(θt−θ^)Im(e−i​θ^Ω)=−∫Lt(θt−θ^)Im(ei⁡(θ−θ^))dvolLt=−∫Lt(θt−θ^)sin(θt−θ^)dvolLt.\begin{split}&\partial_{t}\mathcal{S}=-\int_{L_{t}}(\theta_{t}-\hat{\theta})\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)=-\int_{L_{t}}(\theta_{t}-\hat{\theta})\text{Im}(e^{i(\theta-\hat{\theta})})dvol_{L_{t}}\\ =&-\int_{L_{t}}(\theta_{t}-\hat{\theta})\sin(\theta_{t}-\hat{\theta})dvol_{L_{t}}.\end{split} (57)

If LtL_{t} is almost calibrated, then −π<θ−θ^<π-\pi<\theta-\hat{\theta}<\pi, so ∂t𝒮≤0\partial_{t}\mathcal{S}\leq 0. We conclude that the Solomon functional decreases in time along Joyce’s LMCF under the almost calibrated assumption, at least for the time between the surgeries. It is plausible 𝒮\mathcal{S} is either continuous or jumps downwards at the surgeries in Joyce’s LMCF,6161 61 A somewhat analogous phenomenon in the Brakke flow is that the total volume mass is either continuous or can only jump downwards in time. The mass loss is typically related to the disappearance of a component of the evolving varifold, which is conceptually similar to ‘collapsing zero objects’ in Joyce’s LMCF. This is ruled out by the almost calibrated condition, so optimistically one can even hope for the continuity of the Solomon functional in the almost calibrated setting. which would then imply the Solomon functional is monotone decreasing for all time.

Now recall that the heat equation on the Lagrangian angle implies an integral bound on the mean curvature (53). In particular, if the LMCF can be run for a definite amount of time TT, then there exists some t≤Tt\leq T, with

∫Lt|H→|2​𝑑v​o​lLt≤T−1​∫Lt=0θ2​𝑑v​o​lLt=0≤C​T−1,\int_{L_{t}}|\vec{H}|^{2}dvol_{L_{t}}\leq T^{-1}\int_{L_{t=0}}\theta^{2}dvol_{L_{t=0}}\leq CT^{-1},

where crucially the a priori constant CC does not depend on any quantitative smoothness assumption on the initial Lagrangian, provided it is quantitatively almost calibrated. Such LtL_{t} would be a good candidate for L′L^{\prime}, subject to the hypothesis that Joyce’s LMCF remains within the class of Lagrangians ℒ\mathcal{L}.

Morally the class ℒ\mathcal{L} arises as varifold/current limits of those Lagrangians admissible in Joyce’s program. Under the plausible assumption that Joyce’s LMCF can be passed to the varifold/current limit, then the L2L^{2}-smoothing property can be well explained. The 𝒮⁡(L′)≤𝒮⁡(L)\mathcal{S}(L^{\prime})\leq\mathcal{S}(L) condition comes from the decrease of the Solomon functional along the flow, and the ∫L′|H→|2​𝑑v​o​lL′≤C\int_{L^{\prime}}|\vec{H}|^{2}dvol_{L^{\prime}}\leq C condition would follow if Joyce’s LMCF can be run for a uniform amount of time TT. If TT can be taken arbitrarily large, then we can demand further that the L2L^{2} mean curvature is arbitrarily small.

Remark 5.16.

In minimal surface theory, the ability to approximate an unknown object by objects with quantitative derivative controls, is frequently the key of the regularity theory. Notable examples include the Lipschitz and harmonic approximations that lie at the core of De Giorgi’s ϵ\epsilon-regularity theorem, and the center manifolds at the core of Almgren’s big regularity theorem. An excellent survey is [25]. While there are plenty of techniques for constructing area competitors in geometric measure theory, we lack useful ways to construct competitors within the Lagrangian world. Developing such techniques is essential to the LpL^{p}-smoothing property, and possibly also to the Floer theoretic aspects of the variational program.

5.4 Floer theory under weak regularity

The variational program needs to incorporate singular Lagrangians as objects of Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X), which naturally raises many Floer theoretic questions, such as:

  • •

    Suppose a sequence of (exact, quantitatively almost calibrated, smooth) Lagrangians converge in the varifold/current topology to some singular Lagrangian, then what Floer theoretic information can be passed to the limit?

  • •

    What does it mean for two Lagrangian currents to lie in the same derived Fukaya category class?

  • •

    Does it still make sense to talk about Floer theoretic obstructions in the weak regularity setting?

In this section we will offer some general remarks and speculations about the nature of these problems, but will not solve them in any definitive way.

Remark 5.17.

There is a field called C0C^{0}-symplectic topology, which studies properties stable with respect to convergence of Lagrangians under C0C^{0}-Hamiltonian isotopies, especially spectral type invariants. This is morally related to our concerns here, but as far as the author understands, Floer theory for Lagrangian varifolds/currents is not yet explicitly treated in this field.

Floer theoretic difficulties

If one wishes to build Floer theory for Lagrangian currents by mimicking the smooth case constructions, then one immediately runs into a large number of severe difficulties.

  • •

    For exact embedded Lagrangians, the self Floer cohomology of a Lagrangian is isomorphic to the singular cohomology: H​F∗​(L,L)≃H∗​(L)HF^{*}(L,L)\simeq H^{*}(L). Now in the light of Almgren’s big regularity theorem, our best hope is that in the variational argument we only encounter codimension two singularities in the Lagrangian. We have no right to assume the topology of the Lagrangian is fixed in the variational framework. The homology groups Hn−m​(L)H_{n-m}(L) for m≥1m\geq 1 are highly unstable under varifold/current convergence if codimension two singularities can form, so for m≥1m\geq 1 we do not expect a direct geometric definition of H​Fm​(L,L)HF^{m}(L,L) for Lagrangian currents, that possesses any reasonable continuity property under convergence.

  • •

    The standard way to set up Floer theory between two Lagrangians is to consider the transverse intersection points as the generators of the Floer complex, and counts of holomorphic strips as differentials between generators. This viewpoint depends heavily on the differential topology of the Lagrangians, which runs into troubles for Lagrangian currents, where tangent spaces only need to exist almost everywhere in a measure theoretic sense.

  • •

    Once Lagrangian intersections are not well behaved, we cannot define the bounding cochains supported at intersection points in the usual way.

  • •

    Parallel transport along local systems may break down.

  • •

    It is unclear how to define (relative) spin structures on Lagrangian currents.

  • •

    Standard Floer theory depends heavily on transversality arguments based on differential topology, which is lost on Lagrangian currents.

In short, a direct geometric construction of the A∞A_{\infty} structure is unlikely for Lagrangian currents.

Formal limit perspective

One natural idea is that we only develop Floer theory for sufficiently smooth Lagrangians (eg. immersed Lagrangians, isolated T2T^{2}-cones, etc), and formally treat Lagrangian currents using approximation by smooth objects. Suppose LiL_{i} are sufficiently smooth Lagrangian branes in the same Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class, and Li→LL_{i}\to L in the varifold/current topology, and assume the brane structures provide a Cauchy sequence in some appropriate sense, then one formally declare the Lagrangian current LL as carrying an object in the same Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class. A weak Lagrangian brane would then tautologically be an equivalence class of Cauchy sequences. The same Lagrangian current may in principle support many different formal brane structures, not necessarily all in the same derived category class.

In this perspective, weak Lagrangian branes are indirect constructions, whose properties amount to quantitative properties of sufficiently smooth Lagrangians that can be bounded in terms of a priori quantities such as the distance on the branes, the flat norm on the currents, the Hausdorff distance between the Lagrangians, etc.

Question 12.

Is there a notion of distance between two Lagrangian branes L,L′L,L^{\prime} in the same Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class, that has precompactness property modulo gauge under varifold/current topology, in the setting of exact, quantitative almost calibrated Lagrangians with bounded Lagrangian potential?

One concrete notion of distance is as follows (cf. [35, Definition 2.2], see also [10, section 5]). We can look for the α,β\alpha,\beta representing generators in H​F0​(L,L′)HF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) and H​F0​(L′,L)HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L) with cohomological compositions equal to the identity; in the almost calibrated case C​F−1​(L,L′)=0CF^{-1}(L,L^{\prime})=0, so α,β\alpha,\beta are unique up to scaling. Since all bounding cochains and A∞A_{\infty} products have non-negative Novikov exponents, and the sum of Novikov exponents add up to zero, we must have some negative Novikov exponent for α\alpha or β\beta. In our context, the Novikov exponent amounts to (fL−fL′)​(p)(f_{L}-f_{L^{\prime}})(p) at p∈C​F0​(L,L′)p\in CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) and (fL′−fL)​(q)(f_{L^{\prime}}-f_{L})(q) at q∈C​F0​(L′,L)q\in CF^{0}(L^{\prime},L). The quantity

−min⁡{Novikov exponents among all intersection points of α,β}-\min\{\text{Novikov exponents among all intersection points of $\alpha,\beta$}\}

provides a candidate notion of distance d⁡(L,L′)d(L,L^{\prime}) between Lagrangian branes. Notice this distance bounds the energy of the holomorphic discs with boundary on L,L′L,L^{\prime}. Given three objects L,L′,L′′L,L^{\prime},L^{\prime\prime}, by considering the composition of the generators, it is easy to deduce d⁡(L,L′′)≤d⁡(L,L′)+d⁡(L′,L′′)d(L,L^{\prime\prime})\leq d(L,L^{\prime})+d(L^{\prime},L^{\prime\prime}).

Does this notion of distance have any precompactness property? Namely, given a sequence of sufficiently smooth Lagrangian objects Li∈ℒL_{i}\in\mathcal{L}, (eg. a minimizing sequence for the Solomon functional), and assuming the Lagrangian potentials are uniformly bounded, then up to making gauge equivalent choices of local systems and bounding cochains, when can we extract a Cauchy subsequence?

Remark 5.18.

As an illustration of the subtlety, consider immersed Lagrangians LL built as the cone of L2→𝛾L1​[1]L_{2}\xrightarrow{\gamma}L_{1}[1]. Replacing γ\gamma by c​γc\gamma for c>0c>0 results in new bounding cochain structures on L1∪L2L_{1}\cup L_{2}, but the distance between these brane structures is zero. The limit c→0c\to 0 however belongs to a different Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class. This suggests our formulation of weak Lagrangian branes is probably not sufficient to distinguish between several derived category classes.

One may also ask if the weak Lagrangian branes agree with ordinary Lagrangian branes in the case of smooth immersed Lagrangians:

Question 13.

Suppose LiL_{i} is a sequence of immersed Lagrangian branes, all in the same Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class, and is a Cauchy sequence with respect to the distance on the branes. Suppose LL is an immersed Lagrangian, and Li→LL_{i}\to L in the varifold/current topology. Then does there exist a suitable brane structure on LL so that Li→LL_{i}\to L with respect to the distance on the branes?

Geometric perspective: bordism currents and triangulated categories

It is interesting to ask if any Floer theoretic geometric construction may be performed on Lagrangian currents at all. While the A∞A_{\infty}-category structure on the Fukaya category may not necessarily be robust under varifold/current convergence of Lagrangians, only a subset of the structures are essential to the Thomas-Yau conjecture:

  • •

    The notion of derived Fukaya category classes.

  • •

    The notion of distinguished triangles, within the class of Lagrangians ℒ\mathcal{L}. This is the categorical shadow of the phenomenon that Lagrangians can be broken into several components under weak limits.

  • •

    The central charge function.

The central charge is of numerical nature, and is continuous under convergence in the current topology. A key feature of L,L′L,L^{\prime} lying in the same derived category class is that there is a bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C} constructed from holomorphic curves, such that ∂𝒞=L−L′\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L^{\prime}. Likewise for distinguished triangles L1→L→L2→L1​[1]L_{1}\to L\to L_{2}\to L_{1}[1] in the weak regularity setting, a key expected property is that there should be a bordism current between LL and L1+L2L_{1}+L_{2}, constructed from families of holomorphic curves.

Question 14.

Given unobstructed (sufficiently smooth) exact Lagrangians Li,Li′L_{i},L_{i}^{\prime} all in the same derived category class. Assume convergence Li→LL_{i}\to L and Li′→L′L_{i}^{\prime}\to L^{\prime} in the varifold/current topology. Can we assign an (n+1)(n+1)-bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C} between LL and L′L^{\prime}, constructed from the moduli space of holomorphic curves with boundary on LL and L′L^{\prime}?

The basic idea is to take the bordism current 𝒞i\mathcal{C}_{i} with ∂𝒞i=Li−Li′\partial\mathcal{C}_{i}=L_{i}-L_{i}^{\prime}, constructed from the universal family of holomorphic curves, and attempt to extract the limit as currents. This could be morally viewed as a version of Gromov compactness for families. As rather strong evidence, in the quantitatively almost calibrated setting we derived uniform energy bound for holomorphic curves contributing to 𝒞i\mathcal{C}_{i}, by proving the potential clustering property (cf. section 5.2.1, and Prop. 3.41). If we work with Fukaya category over the integers, the bordism currents 𝒞i\mathcal{C}_{i} would be integral currents, and we can hope to extract limit by some compactness argument. The problem is that we do not know 𝒞i\mathcal{C}_{i} have uniform mass upper bounds. Morever, it is an interesting question how to formulate the parametrized family structure of the bordism current in the geometric measure theory language.

Remark 5.19.

Question 14 is formulated without any smoothness assumption on LL and L′L^{\prime}. In the light of the conjectural LpL^{p}-smoothing property (cf. section 5.3), one may be able to assume some a priori L2L^{2}-bound on the mean curvature.

While Lagrangian intersections, bounding cochains, spin structures, local systems etc. do not make sense directly on Lagrangian currents, the bordism current has a chance to make sense, and encodes substantial information. For instance, the orientations of the moduli spaces reflect the spin structures, and the weighting factors for the moduli spaces encode the combined effect of bounding cochain elements and the parallel transport along the local system.

Remark 5.20.

As mentioned in section 3.5, the mere requirement for the Floer theoretic obstruction criterion (i.e. the stability condition) to make sense for Lagrangian currents is already very constraining. Most statements are simply impossible to make without concepts that need at least C1C^{1}-regularity, and the bordism currents between integration cycles are among the rare exceptions. This was one of the heuristic arguments in section 3.5 that obstructions must come from bordism currents.

Question 15.

How much of the triangulated category structure works for weak regularity exact Lagrangians? How much of Floer theory can be developed upon the notion of bordism currents? Is it possible to encode weak Lagrangian branes à là the formal limit perspective, in terms of bordism currents?

We mentioned in Remark 3.5 that when more than two Lagrangians are present, Floer theory would also produce (n+2)(n+2)-dimensional currents whose boundary exhibit homological relations between the (n+1)(n+1)-dimensional bordism currents. Such ‘bordisms between bordisms’ may encode further information about the triangulated category.

Previlleged role of H​F0HF^{0}

We consider quantitative almost calibrated Lagrangians. We mentioned above that H​Fm​(L,L)HF^{m}(L,L) for m≥1m\geq 1 is problematic, by analogy with singular cohomology. On the other hand, H0​(L)≃Hn​(L)H^{0}(L)\simeq H_{n}(L) is much more robust compared to higher cohomologies, in the sense that the fundamental cycle of LL can deform in a continuous way, under topological changes such as the shrinking of a codimension two cycle. Continuing with the analogy, we expect the geometric information in H​F0HF^{0} behaves more continuously under current/varifold limits than the higher degree Floer groups. This is compatible with the fact that the bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C} between L,L′L,L^{\prime} encodes the compositions α∘β=1L′\alpha\circ\beta=1_{L^{\prime}} and β∘α=1L\beta\circ\alpha=1_{L}, with α∈H​F0​(L,L′)\alpha\in HF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) and β∈H​F0​(L′,L)\beta\in HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L), and we expect bordism currents have some continuity properties under varifold/current convergence.

Remark 5.21.

This previlleged role of H​F0HF^{0} is reflected in the usual Thomas-Yau argument (cf. section 2.2), which only makes use of H​F0HF^{0}, not the higher Floer cohomologies, nor full set of higher A∞A_{\infty} products.

Remark 5.22.

In the passage from the Fukaya category to the derived category, the morphism space only retains H​F0HF^{0}, not the full H​F∗HF^{*}. The ususal way the derived category remembers higher Floer cohomology, is via the shift operator [m][m]. However, in the Thomas-Yau-Joyce picture, working with the almost calibrated setting means conjecturally that we are picking out an abelian subcategory, which breaks the shift symmetry of the derived category. This gives a categorical explanation why H​F0HF^{0} may behave very differently from the higher Floer groups.

Multiplicity issues

The same underlying geometric Lagrangian can conceivably support many different objects in the Fukaya category. A possible source of this problem is a sequence of immersed Lagrangians LiL_{i} converging to a multiple of a Lagrangian current LL. The underlying Lagrangian current contains only the support information and the multiplicity, which can be imagined as the number of sheets in LiL_{i}. Much geometric information, however, is not captured this way:

  • •

    Take two Lagrangians L1,L2L_{1},L_{2} which are both C∞C^{\infty} close to a given immersed Lagrangian L′L^{\prime}, but whose Lagrangian potentials differ by approximately a constant. In the limit L1∪L2→2​L′L_{1}\cup L_{2}\to 2L^{\prime} as currents, but the potential information is lost. On the other hand, the potential clustering property can restore this information.

  • •

    Immersed Lagrangians may be nontrivial (branched) covers over other immersed Lagrangians. When this happens, the monodromy information is not remembered by the underlying current. On the other hand, it is conceivable that some (generalized) local system data can restore this information.

  • •

    Let QQ be a closed smooth manifold. Abouzaid [3] showed that the wrapped Fukaya category of the cotangent bundle T∗​QT^{*}Q is generated by any cotangent fibre Tq∗​QT_{q}^{*}Q, and the wrapped Floer cochain complex of Tq∗​QT_{q}^{*}Q is A∞A_{\infty}-equivalent to C−⁣∗​(Ωq​Q)C_{-*}(\Omega_{q}Q) for the based loop space Ωq​Q\Omega_{q}Q. In particular, for any (compact, embedded, exact) Lagrangian L⊂T∗​QL\subset T^{*}Q, the Floer cohomologies H​W∗​(Tq∗​Q,L)HW^{*}(T_{q}^{*}Q,L) and H​F∗​(L,L)HF^{*}(L,L) are representations of H−⁣∗​(Ωq​Q)H_{-*}(\Omega_{q}Q). This cotangent bundle case can be viewed as the local model of Lagrangians contained in a small neighbourhood of a given embedded Lagrangian.

It is interesting to ask how much of such information can still make sense for Lagrangian currents.

Remark 5.23.

Multiple covers of Lagrangians may be related to the following problem of the Fukaya category. Given a class in the Grothendieck group of Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) represented by a Lagrangian, one may ask if the primitive of this class is also represented by a Lagrangian. Such questions are related to the idempotent closure problem of Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) in Joyce’s program, which seems very delicate.

Remark 5.24.

Construction of special Lagrangian branched multiple covers over given special Lagrangians is currently studied by S. Donaldson [29] and S. He among others.

Remark 5.25.

A holomorphic vector bundle analogue for multiply covered Lagrangians is the (multiple) extension of the bundle by itself, such as the E′E^{\prime} fitting into a short exact sequence 0→E→E′→E→00\to E\to E^{\prime}\to E\to 0. In the HYM setting these are prototypical sources of semistable but not stable bundles, and it would not be surprising if similar phenomenon happens in the Thomas-Yau program.

5.5 Asymptotes of the Solomon functional

We have emphasized that the Solomon functional depends not only on LL, but also the potential fLf_{L}, and that the freedom of additive constants causes the space of (L,fL)(L,f_{L}) to be noncompact, even though the space of Lagrangians ℒ\mathcal{L} is more or less compact under the varifold/current topology. We now wish to explain why the asymptotic behaviour of the Solomon functional should be controlled by Thomas-Yau semistability. The key tool is an a priori bound on the difference between the Solomon functional and the elementary functional, for which we gave sufficient conditions in section 3.8.3 and 5.2.2.

In the setup of (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering (cf. Cor. 5.9, section 5.2.1), we will rewrite the elementary functional 𝒮¯\bar{\mathcal{S}} (cf. (45)). Recall we have a Lagrangian LL built from L1,…​LNL_{1},\ldots L_{N}; in the unobstructed immersed Lagrangian context, this structure comes from a twisted complex (cf. section 3.8.3). We introduce the new Lagrangian currents

ℰk=L1+L2…+Lk,k=0,1,2,…N,\mathcal{E}_{k}=L_{1}+L_{2}\ldots+L_{k},\quad k=0,1,2,\ldots N,

which in the immersed context corresponds to the twisted complex (18). In particular ℰN=L\mathcal{E}_{N}=L, which is homologous to L0L_{0}. Thus

𝒮¯=Im​(∑1N(supLifLi)​e−i​θ^​(∫ℰiΩ−∫ℰi−1Ω))−(supL0fL0)​Im​(e−i​θ^​∫L0Ω)=Im​(∑1N−1(supLifLi−supLi+1fLi+1)​e−i​θ^​∫ℰiΩ)+(supLNfLN−supL0fL0)​Im​(e−i​θ^​∫L0Ω).\begin{split}\bar{\mathcal{S}}=&\text{Im}\left(\sum_{1}^{N}(\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}})e^{-i\hat{\theta}}(\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i}}\Omega-\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i-1}}\Omega)\right)-(\sup_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}})\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{L_{0}}\Omega)\\ =&\text{Im}\left(\sum_{1}^{N-1}(\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}-\sup_{L_{i+1}}f_{L_{i+1}})e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i}}\Omega\right)+(\sup_{L_{N}}f_{L_{N}}-\sup_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}})\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{L_{0}}\Omega).\end{split}

But we chose in the beginning θ^=arg∫L0Ω.\hat{\theta}=\arg\int_{L_{0}}\Omega. Thus Im​(e−i​θ^​∫L0Ω)=0\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{L_{0}}\Omega)=0, and

𝒮¯=∑1N−1(supLifLi−supLi+1fLi+1)​Im​(e−i​θ^​∫ℰiΩ).\bar{\mathcal{S}}=\sum_{1}^{N-1}(\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}-\sup_{L_{i+1}}f_{L_{i+1}})\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i}}\Omega\right). (58)

As part of the potential clustering property, we have

supL1fL1≤supL2fL2≤…≤supLNfLN.\sup_{L_{1}}f_{L_{1}}\leq\sup_{L_{2}}f_{L_{2}}\leq\ldots\leq\sup_{L_{N}}f_{L_{N}}. (59)

We arrive at the following key dichotomy:

  • •

    In the unstable case, there exists some 1≤k≤N−11\leq k\leq N-1, such that

    Im​(e−i​θ^​∫ℰkΩ)>0,\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega\right)>0,

    or equivalently

    arg∫ℰkΩ>θ^.\arg\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega>\hat{\theta}. (60)

    Notice LL fits into a distinguished triangle

    ℰk→L→∪i≥k+1Li→ℰk[1],\mathcal{E}_{k}\to L\to\cup_{i\geq k+1}L_{i}\to\mathcal{E}_{k}[1],

    We explained in Theorem 3.21 under the extra hypotheses of automatic transversality and the positivity condition, that this leads to a Floer theoretic obstruction. In Conjecture 3.31 we heuristically argued that even without these extra hypotheses, the Floer theoretic obstruction should follow from the Thomas-Yau-Joyce program.

    From a different perspective, we can add an arbitrarily large positive number a>0a>0 to the Lagrangian potential on Lk+1,…​LNL_{k+1},\ldots L_{N}. This is compatible with the Novikov positivity condition, so LL stays unobstructed, but S¯\bar{S} changes by an unbounded amount

    −a​Im​(e−i​θ^​∫ℰiΩ)<0.-a\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{i}}\Omega\right)<0.

    We conclude that in the unstable case, the elementary functional is unbounded from below.

  • •

    In the semistable case, for any LL in the class ℒ\mathcal{L} that can be written in the twisted complex form as above, we always have

    Im(e−i​θ^∫ℰkΩ)≤0,∀k=1,2,…N−1.\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega\right)\leq 0,\quad\forall k=1,2,\ldots N-1. (61)

    Then the elementary functional (58) is nonnegative.

    In section 5.2 we argued that since the homology class of LL is prescribed a priori, subject to the quantitative almost calibrated assumption, only finitely many possibilities of homology classes can arise for LiL_{i} in any decomposition. Thus the stronger condition

    Im(e−i​θ^∫ℰkΩ)<0,∀k=1,2,…N−1.\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega\right)<0,\quad\forall k=1,2,\ldots N-1.

    would be equivalent to a uniform bound: for some small c>0c>0,

    Im(e−i​θ^∫ℰkΩ)≤−c<0,∀k=1,2,…N−1.\text{Im}\left(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{k}}\Omega\right)\leq-c<0,\quad\forall k=1,2,\ldots N-1.

    This holds when the class ℒ\mathcal{L} is stricly stable (cf. Definition 3.32). Together with potential clustering, it implies

    𝒮¯​(L)≥c⁡(supLfL−infLfL+A).\bar{\mathcal{S}}(L)\geq c(\sup_{L}f_{L}-\inf_{L}f_{L}+A).

    Thus if the Lagrangian potential oscillation becomes unbounded, then the elementary functional goes to positive infinity. The geometric intuition is the properness of the Solomon functional modulo a global additive constant for fLf_{L}.

Since the Solomon functional and the elementary functional only differ by a bounded amount, the above conclusions transfer to the Solomon functional. Thus the Solomon functional is bounded below in the semistable case, and unbounded from below in the unstable case. A key slogan here is that the asymptotic behaviour of the Solomon functional is governed by Floer theory. This is analogous to the partially conjectural picture in the variational approach to the HYM equation, where the asymptotic behaviour of the Donaldson functional is governed by algebraic geometry (cf. section 2.5).

Remark 5.26.

In Definition 3.32, the Thomas-Yau semistability makes use of distinguished triangles for all almost calibrated Lagrangian objects, not just those with |θ|≤π2−ϵ|\theta|\leq\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon. This makes the Thomas-Yau semistability a priori stronger than the semistable situation of the above dichotomy. We expect from the Thomas-Yau-Joyce picture that both stability notions are actually equivalent under our initial assumption that there is a representative L0L_{0} with |θ|<π2−ϵ|\theta|<\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon. But for our main purpose, that Thomas-Yau semistability implies the existence of special Lagrangians, we do not mind Thomas-Yau semistability being stronger than necessary.

5.5.1 Thomas-Yau conjecture

The following is our interpretation of the Thomas-Yau existence conjecture:

Conjecture 5.21.

Let L0L_{0} be an exact, quantiatively almost calibrated, unobstructed Lagrangian object in ℒ\mathcal{L}. Assuming Thomas-Yau semistability for L0L_{0}, then the following (equivalent) statements hold:

  1. 1.

    There is a special Lagrangian representative in ℒ\mathcal{L}.

  2. 2.

    There is no distinguished triangle in ℒ\mathcal{L} satisfying the destabilizing condition.

  3. 3.

    The Solomon functional is bounded from below on ℒ\mathcal{L}.

  4. 4.

    The Solomon functional has a minimizer in ℒ\mathcal{L}.

Here is a glossary of the evidence presented previously.

  • •

    (2)(2) is tautological from Thomas-Yau semistability (cf. Remark 5.26).

  • •

    (1)(1) implies Thomas-Yau semistability: see the Floer theoretic obstructions Thm. 3.21, Thm. 3.26, Conj. 3.31, where we justified this for immersed Lagrangians under the automatic transversality and the positivity condition, or alternatively by assuming Joyce’s program.

  • •

    (2)⇔(3)(2)\iff(3): this is a consequence of (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering (cf. Cor. 5.9, section 5.2.1), the uniform bound for 𝒮−𝒮¯\mathcal{S}-\bar{\mathcal{S}} (cf. section 5.2.2, 3.8.3), and the formula (58) for the elementary functional.

  • •

    (1)⟹(4)(1)\implies(4): see Prop. 3.40, where we justified this under automatic transversality and the positivity condition.

  • •

    (4)⟹(3)(4)\implies(3): obvious.

The rest of this section concerns (2)⟹(4)(2)\implies(4), and the next section concerns (4)⟹(1)(4)\implies(1). The arguments will rely on several unproven statements, which we consider plausible, but may involve rather significant difficulties or substantial foundational work. Nevertheless, we think it is instructive to see heuristically how everything fits together.

Conjecture 5.22.

In the semistable case, the Solomon functional has a minimizer.

Proof.

(Heuristic) First, we claim that for a minimizing sequence L(k)L^{(k)} of the Solomon functional, without loss of generality the Lagrangian potential fL(k)f_{L}^{(k)} is a priori bounded:

supk‖fL(k)‖L∞≤C.\sup_{k}\left\lVert f_{L}^{(k)}\right\rVert_{L^{\infty}}\leq C. (62)

Consider the potential clustering setup. We can adjust the Lagrangian potentials on LiL_{i} by constants separately, and as long as supLjfLj≤infLifLi\sup_{L_{j}}f_{L_{j}}\leq\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}} for j<ij<i, this process will not affect the Novikov positivity requirement, so the Lagrangian branes should remain in ℒ\mathcal{L}. We view supL1fL1,supL2fL2−supL1fL1,…,supLNfLN−supLN−1fLN−1\sup_{L_{1}}f_{L_{1}},\sup_{L_{2}}f_{L_{2}}-\sup_{L_{1}}f_{L_{1}},\ldots,\sup_{L_{N}}f_{L_{N}}-\sup_{L_{N-1}}f_{L_{N-1}} as independent constants. Adjusting all potentials by a common constant does not affect the Solomon functional, but allows us to set supL1fL1=0\sup_{L_{1}}f_{L_{1}}=0. Decreasing supLifLi−supLi−1fLi−1\sup_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}-\sup_{L_{i-1}}f_{L_{i-1}} subject to the Novikov positivity requirement will decrease the elementary functional (58), crucially because of the semistability condition (61). The part 𝒮−𝒮¯\mathcal{S}-\bar{\mathcal{S}} is unchanged. Thus after this adjustment, the sequence is still minimizing for the Solomon functional. We can thus achieve supLi−1fLi−1=infLifLi\sup_{L_{i-1}}f_{L_{i-1}}=\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}} for all ii. By the potential clustering property, we then have (62).

Next we need the compactness from geometric measure theory. As discussed in section 5.1 and 5.2, under quantitative almost calibratedness there is an a priori volume bound, and the Lagrangians all remain in a fixed bounded subset of XX, so Federer-Fleming compactness (cf. Theorem 5.2) holds automatically. The uniform potential bound (62) would then justify that the weak limit is an almost calibrated Lagrangian current LL with bounded potential fLf_{L} (cf. Lemma 5.7). The continuity of the Solomon functional (cf. Lemma 5.8) then shows 𝒮⁡(L)=infℒ𝒮\mathcal{S}(L)=\inf_{\mathcal{L}}\mathcal{S}.

In section 5.3 we presented the evidence for the conjectural L2L^{2}-smoothing property, which would allow us to assume a uniform a priori bound on the minimizing sequence

∫L|H→|≤C.\int_{L}|\vec{H}|\leq C.

so we can use Allard compactness theorem 5.3. In effect, we can assume the minimizing sequence converges subsequentially both as currents and as varifolds. By assumption the class ℒ\mathcal{L} is closed under the varifold/current topology of the Lagrangian, so the limit LL lies in ℒ\mathcal{L}, whence provides a minimizer in ℒ\mathcal{L}. ∎

Remark 5.27.

If we demand ℒ\mathcal{L} is closed under the flat topology of currents, without requiring varifold convergence, then we would not need the difficult L2L^{2}-smoothing property in the argument. However, this would allow the pathological behaviour in Example 5.4, which would increase the difficulty of Floer theory for weak regularity Lagrangians.

Remark 5.28.

For the geometric measure theoretic purpose of finding special Lagrangians, the existence of a minimizer as a Lagrangian current LL is probably sufficient. However, for applications to the Fukaya category, it is highly desirable to know that LL carries a formal brane structure (cf. section 5.4), which likely requires resolving Question 12. Some analogies suggest the question may be subtle:

  • •

    In geometric invariant theory (GIT), there are niceties concerning semistable, polystable and stable objects. If we take a sequence of semistable objects in a fixed reductive group orbit, the limit may jump outside the orbit, so that the orbit does not admit a polystable representative. Several semistable orbits may be ‘SS-equivalent’, and each SS-equivalence class contains a unique polystable orbit.

  • •

    In the gauge theory of holomorphic bundles, likewise a sequence of connections in the same complexified gauge orbit may jump outside the orbit in the limit; algebro-geometrically, this jumping of bundle structure is usually related to bundle extensions.

  • •

    One motivation for the Thomas-Yau program is to form the moduli space of (semi)stable Lagrangian branes. The Hausdorff property of the moduli space is a delicate question.

For these reasons, as well as Remark 5.18, we are not certain if the Lagrangian minimizer should be interpreted as a representative in the chosen Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class, or if several semistable Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) classes should be identified under some suitable SS-equivalence relation. We think this question requires further developments in Floer theory. The question is also reflected in the delicacy of the infinite time limit in Joyce’s Bridgeland stability proposal.

5.6 Minimizers and special Lagrangians

Conjecture 5.23.

A minimizer LL of the Solomon functional inside ℒ\mathcal{L} is a special Lagrangian of phase θ^\hat{\theta}.

We will give several heuristic reasons. The essential issue is that there should be enough Lagrangian competitors within the class ℒ\mathcal{L}.

LMCF viewpoint

In section 5.3 we discussed that the Solomon functional should be non-increasing under Joyce’s LMCF. Suppose the flow extends weakly to Lagrangians in ℒ\mathcal{L}. The flow starting from a minimizer LL must have constant 𝒮⁡(Lt)\mathcal{S}(L_{t}), but the evolution (57) would then force θ=θ^\theta=\hat{\theta}, namely LL is a special Lagrangian, and the flow is in fact constant.

Hamiltonian variations

If the Lagrangian angle of the minimizer satisfies −π/2+ϵ<infLθ≤supLθ<π/2−ϵ-\pi/2+\epsilon<\inf_{L}\theta\leq\sup_{L}\theta<\pi/2-\epsilon, then we have a more elliptic argument. Given any compactly supported global C∞C^{\infty} Hamiltonian function HH on XX, we can associate a 1-parameter family of symplectomorphisms ϕt\phi_{t} by exponentiating the Hamiltonian vector field. Since d​ϕtd\phi_{t} only moves the tangent planes by O⁡(|t|)O(|t|) for small |t|≪1|t|\ll 1, the Lagrangian angle of ϕt​(L)\phi_{t}(L) is still within (−π/2+ϵ,π/2−ϵ)(-\pi/2+\epsilon,\pi/2-\epsilon), namely the quantitatively almost calibrated condition is preserved.

Under global Hamiltonian deformations, the first variation of the Solomon functional is

δ​S​(H)=dd​t​𝒮​(ϕt​(L))|t=0=∫LH​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω).\delta S(H)=\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{S}(\phi_{t}(L))|_{t=0}=\int_{L}H\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega).

We need another ingredient which is expected to hold once the Floer theory is sufficiently developed in the weak regularity setting:

  • •

    The class of unobstructed exact Lagrangian objects is preserved by Hamiltonian isotopies. As such ϕt​(L)\phi_{t}(L) should remain inside the class ℒ\mathcal{L}.

These would imply that the minimizer LL satisfies

∫LH​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)=0.\int_{L}H\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)=0.

for any compactly supported C∞C^{\infty} function on XX. This means Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)=0\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)=0 as currents, which is equivalent to θ=θ^\theta=\hat{\theta} under the almost calibrated setting.

Remark 5.29.

The assumption that −π/2+ϵ<infLθ≤supLθ<π/2−ϵ-\pi/2+\epsilon<\inf_{L}\theta\leq\sup_{L}\theta<\pi/2-\epsilon for the minimizer is not innocent, but represents a principal gap in our program to find special Lagrangian currents. The problem is that if on the minimizer supLθL=π2−ϵ\sup_{L}\theta_{L}=\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon, and a priori LL has no regularity assumption (eg. the Lagrangian angle may a priori be highly oscillatory), then we lack techniques to construct Lagrangian competitors which remain quantitatively almost calibrated.

5.7 Thomas-Yau uniqueness revisited

The Thomas-Yau uniqueness argument has a conceptually rather mysterious aspect: from local computations of Floer degrees, one arrives at the global conclusion that the two special Lagrangians share the same support. We shall now present a different argument, which is not completely rigorous, but unlike the standard arguments, it could potentially work on Lagrangians with mild singularities.

Conjecture 5.24.

(Thomas-Yau uniqueness in the weak setting) Suppose L,L′L,L^{\prime} are two special Lagrangian integral currents L,L′L,L^{\prime} with the same phase angle θ^\hat{\theta}, equipped with suitable unobstructed brane structures, such that L≃L′L\simeq L^{\prime} in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X). Then L=L′L=L^{\prime} as currents.

Proof.

(Heuristic) In general, we expect there is an (n+1)(n+1)-dimensional rectifiable current 𝒞\mathcal{C} with ∂𝒞=L−L′\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L^{\prime} constructed from universal families of holomorphic curves with boundary on LL and L′L^{\prime}. The holomorphic curves u:Σ→Xu:\Sigma\to X can appear in three types:

  • •

    Automatically transverse holomorphic curves: there exist first order deformations v1,…,vn−1v_{1},\ldots,v_{n-1} such that d​F=Ω⁡(⋅,v1,…​vn−1)dF=\Omega(\cdot,v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1}) does not vanish identically as a 1-form on Σ\Sigma (cf. section 3.3).

  • •

    Nonconstant holomorphic curves, which are not automatically transverse. We expect their boundary evaluation to be contained in a Hausdorff dimension ≤n−1\leq n-1 subset of supp​(L)∪supp​(L′)\text{supp}(L)\cup\text{supp}(L^{\prime}) (cf. section 3.3).

  • •

    Constant holomorphic maps u:Σ→supp​(L)∩supp​(L′)u:\Sigma\to\text{supp}(L)\cap\text{supp}(L^{\prime}). These would only arise if LL and L′L^{\prime} have some overlapping support, so did not appear in our previous discussions. For dimensional reasons, these cannot contribute to the (n+1)(n+1)-dimensional current 𝒞\mathcal{C}.

    The key difference from the second case is that at interior points of supp​(L)∩supp​(L′)\text{supp}(L)\cap\text{supp}(L^{\prime}), there are nn linearly independent first order deformations, such that v1,…​vnv_{1},\ldots v_{n} span T​LTL upon boundary evaluation. This behaviour can only be compatible with d​F=0dF=0 for constant curves.

We now impose the special Lagrangian condition, and consider the automatically transverse case. Along ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, the counterclockwise directional derivative of FF has argument equal to the constant Lagrangian angle θ^\hat{\theta} modulo π​ℤ\pi\mathbb{Z}. As such we expect F⁡(∂Σ)F(\partial\Sigma) to be contained in a line segment with incline angle θ^\hat{\theta}. By the maximum principle on the holomorphic function FF, the entire F⁡(Σ)⊂ℂF(\Sigma)\subset\mathbb{C} is contained in a line segment. However, the open mapping theorem in complex analysis then implies FF is constant, which rules out the automatically transverse curves.

Now the only contributions to 𝒞\mathcal{C} would come from the nonconstant, not automatically transverse curves. This forces supp​(∂𝒞)∩(supp​(L)∪supp​(L′))\text{supp}(\partial\mathcal{C})\cap(\text{supp}(L)\cup\text{supp}(L^{\prime})) to be contained in a Hausdorff (n−1)(n-1)-dimensional subset. However ∂𝒞=L−L′\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L^{\prime} as integral currents, so the nn-dimensional current L−L′L-L^{\prime} has support dimension ≤n−1\leq n-1, which forces it to vanish. This shows L=L′L=L^{\prime}. ∎

Question 16.

When can we say furthermore that the formal brane structures on L=L′L=L^{\prime} are related by some gauge equivalence?

5.7.1 Special Lagrangians are minimizers

We now revisit Prop. 3.40. Our goal is to suggest that the automatic transversality, positivity condition, and even smoothness assumptions can be removed in Prop. 3.40, at the cost of assuming the entire force of the Thomas-Yau conjecture, under the setting of this chapter.

Conjecture 5.25.

If there exists a special Lagrangian LL in the class ℒ\mathcal{L}, then it is a minimizer of the Solomon functional.

Proof.

(Heuristic) The existence of a special Lagrangian representative should imply Thomas-Yau semistability (cf. Conjecture 3.31). By the Thomas-Yau existence conjecture 5.21 this implies the Solomon functional has a minimizer L′L^{\prime}, which must be a special Lagrangian. Then the Thomas-Yau uniqueness conjecture 5.24 implies L=L′L=L^{\prime} as currents. ∎

5.8 Comparison with Joyce’s LMCF program

We have already made extensive comparisons between the variational approach and Joyce’s LMCF program, but it may help to summarize a few highlights.

  • •

    Joyce’s program is much more ambitious in that it tackles the entire derived Fukaya category, not just the almost calibrated Lagrangians. We feel the quantitative almost calibratedness is so pervasively used in the variational approach that it cannot be removed. Dropping the almost calibratedness will give rise to significantly more difficulties in Joyce’s program: the collapsing of zero objects can then happen, and the Solomon functional no longer needs to decrease. Neves’s example of finite time singularity [62] is a concrete manifestation of the difficulty. The almost calibrated condition is also natural from the viewpoint of the continuity method (cf. section 4.2), which deals with special Lagrangians inside varying ambient almost Calabi-Yau structures.

  • •

    Joyce does not specify the Bridgeland stability in a priori Floer theoretic terms. An a priori guess on the nature of the stability condition is central to the variational method. Even though our picture is largely conjectural, it seems to be the most precise description hitherto of how stability condition comes into the existence questions of special Lagrangians.

  • •

    Joyce primarily focuses on compact Calabi-Yaus, and mentions the exact case only as an easier analogue. We have focused on the exact case, although we feel some parts of our picture may extend to compact Calabi-Yaus, if one is prepared to overcome (even more) significant Floer theoretic technical hurdles. However, we do not know what would replace the a priori estimates on the Lagrangian potentials, and notably the potential clustering condition.

  • •

    Joyce’s LMCF involves objects with a priori higher regularity, even though its infinite time convergence behaviour may well require understanding weak regularity Lagrangians. The variational method requires working with varifold/current like objects throughout.

  • •

    Joyce’s LMCF needs to make essential use of genericity conditions. This in particular requires extremely precise classification of all possible generic singularities in order to perform surgeries, a task that becomes overwhelmingly difficult for complex dimension ≥3\geq 3. Our variational program is less sensitive to such arguments. On the other hand, we still potentially need to understand some generic singularities, so that the class ℒ\mathcal{L} contains enough competitors, to enable the proof of the LpL^{p}-smoothing property for some p≥1p\geq 1, and Conjecture 5.23.

  • •

    Although time and again we appealed to Joyce’s LMCF to heuristically justify certain claims, it is only because we lack other ways of constructing Lagrangian competitors with sufficient control, and the basic logical framework of the variational approach is independent of the LMCF. It seems desirable (on account of the extraordinary difficulty of Joyce’s program) to keep this logical independence manifest in the program to rigorize our variational proposal.

  • •

    Joyce’s program has a number of highly nontrivial categorical predictions discussed in section 3.6, such as the idempotent closedness of Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X). Even if these predictions turn out to be false, it would not affect the validity of the variational method.

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