ScalingStacks

5.4 NA Monge-Ampère measure

The NA Monge-AmpΓ¨re measure [11] is defined through intersection theory in a somewhat counterintuitive manner. As a motivation, we consider the complex analytic setting of an snc model 𝒳\mathcal{X} over an algebraic curve, equipped with a Hermitian line bundle (β„’,h)(\mathcal{L},h) with curvature form ΞΈ\theta in the class c1​(β„’)c_{1}(\mathcal{L}). Then ΞΈn\theta^{n} defines a family of nn-forms on XtX_{t}, such that ∫XtΞΈn\int_{X_{t}}\theta^{n} equals the intersection number (Ln)(L^{n}). The question is to describe the limit of these nn-forms, when we view XtX_{t} as converging to the dual intersection complex Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} (cf. section 3.1).

We write X0=βˆ‘i∈Ibi​EiX_{0}=\sum_{i\in I}b_{i}E_{i}. Recall that the regions on XtX_{t} corresponding to the faces in the dual intersection complex are from the algebraic perspective only small neighbourhoods of EJE_{J}. Thus the limit of ΞΈn|Xt\theta^{n}|_{X_{t}} can only be supported at the vertices of Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}, which correspond to the components EiE_{i}. The amount of delta masses concentrated at the vertices are

biβ€‹βˆ«EiΞΈn=bi​ℒnβ‹…Ei,b_{i}\int_{E_{i}}\theta^{n}=b_{i}\mathcal{L}^{n}\cdot E_{i},

where bib_{i} appears due to the multiplicity of the sheets. Reassuringly,

βˆ‘ibi​ℒnβ‹…Ei=(Ln)\sum_{i}b_{i}\mathcal{L}^{n}\cdot E_{i}=(L^{n})

gives the correct total mass.

Back to the NA setting, given a model β„š\mathbb{Q}-line bundle ℒ→𝒳\mathcal{L}\to\mathcal{X} for Lβ†’XKL\to X_{K}, we write 𝒳0=βˆ‘ibi​Ei\mathcal{X}_{0}=\sum_{i}b_{i}E_{i}, and denote the divisorial points associated to EiE_{i} as qiq_{i}. We can then define the NA Monge-AmpΓ¨re measure for the model metric β€–β‹…β€–β„’\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert_{\mathcal{L}} as the following signed atomic measure supported at qi∈XKa​nq_{i}\in X_{K}^{an}:

M​A​(β€–β‹…β€–β„’)=βˆ‘Eibi​(β„’nβ‹…Ei)​δqiMA(\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert_{\mathcal{L}})=\sum_{E_{i}}b_{i}(\mathcal{L}^{n}\cdot E_{i})\delta_{q_{i}}

This definition is compatible with pullback of line bundles by the projection formula, and ensures the total mass is the intersection number (Ln)(L^{n}). If β€–β‹…β€–β„’\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert_{\mathcal{L}} is furthermore semipositive, then the intersection numbers are non-negative, so M​A​(β€–β‹…β€–β„’)MA(\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert_{\mathcal{L}}) is a measure.

The theory of NA MA measures bears strong resemblance to the complex MA measures [4][5]:

  • β€’

    In the complex analytic world, one first define the complex MA for smooth potentials. A general continuous semipositive potential in a KΓ€hler class is the uniform limit of smooth potentials, and its complex MA measure is then determined by the weak continuity under C0C^{0}-convergence.

  • β€’

    In the NA world, one first define the NA MA measure for the model metrics. A general continuous semipositive metric on LL is the uniform limit of a sequence of continuous semipositive model metrics [6, Cor. 8.8], and its NA MA measure can be defined as the unique limiting Radon measure of the NA MA measures for the sequence [4, Cor. 3.5].

Their main difference lies in the highly nonlocal appearance of the NA MA measure. The recent result of Vilsmeier [76] offers a more concrete perspective:

0038

Proposition 5.4. (NA MA-real MA comparison) Let (𝒳,β„’)(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{L}) be a semistable snc model of (XK,L)(X_{K},L), and Int​(Ξ”J)\text{Int}(\Delta_{J}) be an nn-dimensional open face of Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}. Recall the retraction map r𝒳:XKa​n→Δ𝒳r_{\mathcal{X}}:X_{K}^{an}\to\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}. Let Ο•βˆˆC0​(XKa​n)\phi\in C^{0}(X_{K}^{an}) be the potential of a semipositive metric ‖⋅‖ℒ​eβˆ’Ο•\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert_{\mathcal{L}}e^{-\phi}, and suppose Ο•=Ο•βˆ˜r𝒳\phi=\phi\circ r_{\mathcal{X}} on rπ’³βˆ’1​(Ξ”J)r_{\mathcal{X}}^{-1}(\Delta_{J}), then on Int​(Ξ”J)\text{Int}(\Delta_{J}) the pushforward of the NA MA measure

rπ’³βˆ—MA(β€–β‹…β€–eβˆ’Ο•)=n!MAℝ(Ο•|Int​(Ξ”J))r_{\mathcal{X}*}MA(\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert e^{-\phi})=n!MA_{\mathbb{R}}(\phi|_{\text{Int}(\Delta_{J})})

equals the real MA measure of the convex function Ο•|Int​(Ξ”J)\phi|_{\text{Int}(\Delta_{J})} up to a factor n!n!.

The rigorous proof of this comparison uses intersection theory, and the following is a heuristic explanation. Consider an snc model 𝒳\mathcal{X} over an algbebraic curve as in the motivation, and assume furthermore that it is semistable. Recall our heuristic dictionary that a metric β€–β‹…β€–\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert on Lβ†’XKL\to X_{K} should encode a family of Hermitian metrics hth_{t} on Lβ†’XtL\to X_{t}, such that ht1/|log⁑|t||β†’β€–β‹…β€–2h_{t}^{1/|\log|t||}\to\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert^{2} in the hybrid topology, and the NA MA measure of β€–β‹…β€–\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert should be the limit of the measures associated to the curvature forms of h|Xth|_{X_{t}}. We now focus on the neighbourhood of an nn-dimensional open face Int​(Ξ”J)βŠ‚Ξ”π’³βŠ‚Ξ”π’³βŠ”X\text{Int}(\Delta_{J})\subset\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}\subset\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}\sqcup X, where we have local coordinates z0,…​znz_{0},\ldots z_{n} with ∏0nzi=t\prod_{0}^{n}z_{i}=t, and xi=log⁑|zi|log⁑|t|x_{i}=\frac{\log|z_{i}|}{\log|t|}. In the local picture we identify metrics with potentials, so β€–β‹…β€–βˆΌeβˆ’Ο•\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert\sim e^{-\phi}, and after ignoring C0C^{0}-fluctuation effects ht1/|log⁑|t||∼eβˆ’2Ο•βˆ˜Log𝒳h_{t}^{1/|\log|t||}\sim e^{-2\phi\circ\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}}}. Imposing more smoothness assumptions, the curvature form of hth_{t} is approximately

|log⁑|t||​d​dcβ€‹Ο•βˆ˜Log𝒳=βˆ’12β€‹Ο€β€‹βˆ‘1≀i,j≀nβˆ‚2Ο•βˆ‚xiβ€‹βˆ‚xj​d​xi∧d​arg​(zj).|\log|t||dd^{c}\phi\circ\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}}=\frac{-1}{2\pi}\sum_{1\leq i,j\leq n}\frac{\partial^{2}\phi}{\partial x_{i}\partial x_{j}}dx_{i}\wedge d\text{arg}(z_{j}).

The NA MA measure should agree with the limiting pushforward measure

limtβ†’0Logπ’³βˆ—(|log|t||ddcΟ•βˆ˜Log𝒳)n=n!det(D2Ο•)|dx1…dxn|=n!MAℝ(Ο•)\lim_{t\to 0}\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}*}(|\log|t||dd^{c}\phi\circ\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}})^{n}=n!\det(D^{2}\phi)|dx_{1}\ldots dx_{n}|=n!\text{MA}_{\mathbb{R}}(\phi)

which equals the real MA measure up to the factor n!n!.

0039

Remark 12. In this heuristic calculation, the assumption for Ο•\phi to factor through the retraction map allows us to replace the hybrid space XβŠ”XKa​nX\sqcup X_{K}^{an} by its finite approximation XβŠ”Ξ”π’³X\sqcup\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.