ScalingStacks

6.3 Strategy II: a priori limit

The second strategy does not appeal to NA geometry, and is independent of section 6.2.

  • •

    Argue a priori that the local potential functions of the Calabi-Yau metrics on UJ,t⊂XtU_{J,t}\subset X_{t} converge subsequentially to some convex function on the open nn-dimensional faces of S​k​(X)Sk(X), in the C0C^{0}-norm.

  • •

    Argue that the convex function satisfies the real MA equation.

The strategy is general, except for a delicate problem which we only solved in the very special case for the Fermat family (cf. Theorem 6.2 [52]).

6.3.1 Producing convex functions

Recall the logarithm map Logt:(ℂ∗)n→ℝn\text{Log}_{t}:(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}\to\mathbb{R}^{n}.

Logt​(z1,…​zn)=1log⁡|t|​(log⁡|z1|,…​log⁡|zn|).\text{Log}_{t}(z_{1},\ldots z_{n})=\frac{1}{\log|t|}(\log|z_{1}|,\ldots\log|z_{n}|).

Consider an open convex subset U⊂ℝnU\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}, and let ϕ\phi be a psh function on Logt−1​(U)⊂(ℂ∗)n\text{Log}_{t}^{-1}(U)\subset(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}.

003Q

Lemma 6.6. [52, Lemma 4.3] The fibrewise TnT^{n} average function

ϕ¯​(x1,…​xn)=1(2​π)n​∫Tnϕ⁡(ex1​log⁡|t|+i​θ1,…​exn​log⁡|t|+i​θn)​d​θ1​…​d​θn\bar{\phi}(x_{1},\ldots x_{n})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n}}\int_{T^{n}}\phi(e^{x_{1}\log|t|+i\theta_{1}},\ldots e^{x_{n}\log|t|+i\theta_{n}})d\theta_{1}\ldots d\theta_{n}

is a convex function in the variables x1,…​xnx_{1},\ldots x_{n}.

003R

Proof. Since the function ϕ¯\bar{\phi} is an average of psh functions, it is psh as a TnT^{n}-invariant function on Logt−1​(U)\text{Log}_{t}^{-1}(U). Such functions correspond to convex functions downstairs. ∎

An important intuition is that on sufficiently collapsed toric regions inside (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}, bounded Kähler potentials have a strong tendency to be approximated by convex functions.

003S

Proposition 6.7. Assume ‖ϕ‖C0\left\lVert\phi\right\rVert_{C^{0}} has a uniform bound independent of tt. Then after shrinking UU by a small amount independent of tt, we have

  • •

    The convex function ϕ¯\bar{\phi} has a Lipschitz bound |ϕ¯​(x)−ϕ¯​(x′)|≤C​|x−x′|.|\bar{\phi}(x)-\bar{\phi}(x^{\prime})|\leq C|x-x^{\prime}|.

  • •

    There is an upper bound ϕ−ϕ¯≤C|log⁡|t||1/2\phi-\bar{\phi}\leq\frac{C}{|\log|t||^{1/2}}.

  • •

    On each logarithmic dyadic scale Ua={ai≤log|zi|≤2ai,∀i}⊂UU_{a}=\{a_{i}\leq\log|z_{i}|\leq 2a_{i},\forall i\}\subset U, the L1L^{1}-integral

    ∫Ua|ϕ−ϕ¯|​∏−1​d​log⁡zi∧𝑑log⁡zi¯≤C|log⁡|t||1/2.\int_{U_{a}}|\phi-\bar{\phi}|\prod\sqrt{-1}d\log z_{i}\wedge d\overline{\log z_{i}}\leq\frac{C}{|\log|t||^{1/2}}.
  • •

    There is an improved Skoda inequality with uniform constants α,C\alpha,C independent of tt:

    ∫Ue−α​|log⁡|t||1/2​(ϕ−ϕ¯)​d​μt≤C.\int_{U}e^{-\alpha|\log|t||^{1/2}(\phi-\bar{\phi})}d\mu_{t}\leq C.
003T

Proof. (Sketch)

  • •

    Bounded convex functions automatically have Lipschitz bound on slightly shrinked convex domains.

  • •

    The second item follows from a slightly tricky application of mean value inequality for subharmonic functions, cf. [52, section 4.3].

  • •

    The third item is because the function ϕ−ϕ¯\phi-\bar{\phi} has mean value zero, so an upper bound implies an L1L^{1}-bound, cf. [52, section 4.3].

  • •

    One first apply the basic Skoda estimate Thm. 4.2 to the function ϕ\phi on each logarithmic dyadic scale, where ϕ¯\bar{\phi} is almost constant by the Lipschitz bound. Then we sum over all the logarithmic dyadic scales (cf. [52, section 4.6]).

∎

003U

Remark 17. The improved Skoda estimate is one of the main discoveries in [52]. Intuitively, this means ϕ−ϕ¯\phi-\bar{\phi} can only be significantly below −C​o​n​s​t|log⁡|t||1/2-\frac{Const}{|\log|t||^{1/2}} on sets with exponentially small measure. Compounded with the upper bound ϕ−ϕ¯≤C|log⁡|t||1/2\phi-\bar{\phi}\leq\frac{C}{|\log|t||^{1/2}}, this means for sufficiently small tt, an arbitrary bounded psh function ϕ\phi is very close to the convex function ϕ¯\bar{\phi} except on exponentially small measure.

In our applications, the psh functions ϕ\phi arise from the local potentials ϕC​Y,J,t\phi_{CY,J,t} of the Calabi-Yau metrics ωC​Y,t\omega_{CY,t} on toric charts inside XtX_{t}. Since ωC​Y,t\omega_{CY,t} has uniformly bounded potential with respect to Fubini-Study reference metrics (cf. Thm. 4.6), it is easy to arrange the local potentials ϕC​Y,J,t\phi_{CY,J,t} on toric charts to be uniformly bounded, whence the convex functions ϕ¯C​Y,J,t\bar{\phi}_{CY,J,t} are also uniformly bounded. Using the Lipschitz bound, by Arzela-Ascoli, we can extract a collection of subsequential limits as t→0t\to 0. By construction ϕ¯C​Y,J,t→ϕ¯J,0\bar{\phi}_{CY,J,t}\to\bar{\phi}_{J,0} in the Cl​o​c0C^{0}_{loc} sense on the interior of the nn-dimensional faces of S​k​(X)Sk(X).

6.3.2 C0C^{0}-convergence of the potential and extension problem

We aim to show ‖ϕC​Y,J,t−ϕ¯J,0∘Log𝒳‖C0\left\lVert\phi_{CY,J,t}-\bar{\phi}_{J,0}\circ\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}}\right\rVert_{C^{0}} on the slightly shrinked UJ,tU_{J,t} converges to zero along the subsequence. We know ‖ϕ¯C​Y,t−ϕ¯J,0‖C0→0\left\lVert\bar{\phi}_{CY,t}-\bar{\phi}_{J,0}\right\rVert_{C^{0}}\to 0 along the subsequence, and from Remark 17, we know |ϕC​Y,J,t−ϕ¯C​Y,J,t∘Log𝒳||\phi_{CY,J,t}-\bar{\phi}_{CY,J,t}\circ\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}}| is small except on a subset with small measure. Removing this small measure problem, is however rather subtle, and requires a global argument.

The strategy is:

  • •

    (‘Extension problem’) Find a global Kähler metric ωψ,t\omega_{\psi,t} on XtX_{t} whose local potentials on UJ,tU_{J,t} agree with ϕ¯J,0∘Log𝒳\bar{\phi}_{J,0}\circ\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}} up to C0C^{0} small error, and whose potential with respect to a fixed Fubini-Study metric is bounded independent of tt.

  • •

    (Potential stability estimate) We can then consider the potential ϕC​Y,r​e​l\phi_{CY,rel} of the Calabi-Yau metric ωC​Y,t\omega_{CY,t} relative to ωψ,t\omega_{\psi,t}. A small upper bound for ϕC​Y,r​e​l\phi_{CY,rel} on UJ,tU_{J,t} follows from ϕC​Y,J,t−ϕ¯C​Y,J,t∘Log𝒳≤C|log⁡|t||1/2\phi_{CY,J,t}-\bar{\phi}_{CY,J,t}\circ\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}}\leq\frac{C}{|\log|t||^{1/2}}. We also know a small lower bound on the ϕC​Y,r​e​l\phi_{CY,rel} holds except on a set with very small measure, and then an application of Theorem 4.7 concludes a small lower bound on infϕC​Y,r​e​l\inf\phi_{CY,rel}. We emphasize that the global positivity of Kähler metrics is essential for this argument.

    The net conclusion is that ϕC​Y,r​e​l\phi_{CY,rel} is C0C^{0}-small on a slightly shrinked version of UJ,tU_{J,t}. This amounts to the smallness of ‖ϕC​Y,J,t−ϕ¯J,0∘Log𝒳‖C0\left\lVert\phi_{CY,J,t}-\bar{\phi}_{J,0}\circ\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}}\right\rVert_{C^{0}}, which is our goal.

The extension problem is about patching local potentials to global Kähler potentials, and the difficulty is to achieve psh property in the non-generic region. The core problem, which is not satisfactorily solved in general, is

003V

Question 8. Can we sufficiently explicitly characterize the class of convex potentials on S​k​(X)Sk(X) that can be regarded as limits of Kähler potentials on XtX_{t}?

The extension problem is solved in an ad hoc way for the Fermat family, and constitutes the most technical part of [52].55 5 Technically, the paper [52] does not use the language of dual complexes and essential skeletons, but proceed via explicit charts controlled by tropical geometry. Recall the Fermat family embeds into an ambient projective space ℂ​ℙn+1\mathbb{CP}^{n+1}. Our strategy is to produce the extension ωψ,t\omega_{\psi,t} as a toric Kähler metric on ℂ​ℙn+1\mathbb{CP}^{n+1}, and then restrict to XtX_{t}, which guarantees the global positivity. Ensuring that ωψ,t\omega_{\psi,t} agrees with the local convex functions up to C0C^{0}-small error is a delicate matter, that involves the explicit tropical hypersurface combinatorics, exploits the large amount of discrete symmetry of the Fermat family, and uses a double Legendre transform construction [52].

003W

Remark 18. The motivation for toric Kähler metrics on ℂ​ℙn+1\mathbb{CP}^{n+1} is as follows. The toric property is a natural way to reduce general Kähler potentials to convex functions. The idea of extension to an ambient space, is based on

003X

Proposition 6.8. ([19, Thm. B]) Let (X,ω)(X,\omega) be a projective manifold with a Kähler form representing an integral class, and YY be a smooth subvariety of XX. Then any ϕ∈P​S​H​(Y,ω|Y)\phi\in PSH(Y,\omega|_{Y}) extends to ϕ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\phi\in PSH(X,\omega).

6.3.3 Real MA metric

To complete the circle, we need

003Y

Lemma 6.9. The limiting convex potentials ϕ¯J,0\bar{\phi}_{J,0} solve the real MA equation (17) on the interior of ΔJ\Delta_{J}.

The strategy is to pass the complex MA equation on UJ,tU_{J,t} to the limit. This is feasible, morally because the complex MA operator is weakly continuous under the C0C^{0}-convergence of potentials. In our setting, an extra subtlety is that the sequence of potentials are defined on different manifolds, and the modification of the usual arguments are carried out in [52, section 5.1].

6.3.4 Relation to NA geometry

The a priori limit strategy does not explicitly appeal to NA geometry. Its principal remaining difficulty is the extension problem. Based on the experience with the Fermat example, we anticipate that extension to toric metrics on ambient toric varieties is a useful technique, and the problem may have a substantially combinatorial aspect. As we emphasized in section 5.6, an explicit class of convex potentials would also be essential for a direct formulation of the real MA equation, which is likely needed for more refined questions such as the affine structure and the singular set of the real MA metric on S​k​(X)Sk(X) (cf. the Kontsevich-Soibelman conjecture in section 3.3).

In contrast, the NA pluripotential theory is built around the central concept of NA semipositive metrics on XKa​nX_{K}^{an}, which extend up to C0C^{0}-small error to Kähler potentials on XtX_{t} via the Fubini-Study approximation. In that respect, NA pluripotential theory may be viewed as a disguised solution of the extension problem. To make contact with differential geometric applications, however, requires some additional hypothesis such as the NA MA-real MA comparison property. Comparing the difficulties in the two strategies, we speculate that proving the NA MA-real MA comparison property requires a more concrete characterization of NA semipositive metrics, perhaps of explicitly combinatorial nature.

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