ScalingStacks

2. Background [018U]

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

2. Background

For this section we refer to our companion paper [BFJ11] for details and further references.

2.1. Berkovich space and models

Let RR be a complete discrete valuation ring with fraction field KK and residue field kk. We shall assume that kk has characteristic zero. We let t∈Rt\in R be a uniformizing parameter and normalize the corresponding absolute value on KK by log⁡|t|−1=1\log|t|^{-1}=1. Note that R≃k⁡[[t]]R\simeq k[\![t]\!] and K≃k⁡((t))K\simeq k(\!(t)\!), see for instance [Ser68]. Write S:=Spec⁡RS:=\spec R.

Let XX be a smooth projective KK-variety, i.e. an integral (but not necessarily geometrically integral) smooth projective KK-scheme. A model of XX is a normal, flat and projective SS-scheme 𝒳\mathcal{X} with XX as its generic fiber. We denote by 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0} its special fiber, and by Div0⁡(𝒳)\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}) the group of vertical Cartier divisors, i.e. those supported in 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0}. We write Div0⁡(𝒳)𝐑\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}} accordingly.

Let ℳX\mathcal{M}_{X} be the set of all isomorphism classes of models of XX. Given 𝒳′,𝒳\mathcal{X}^{\prime},\mathcal{X} in ℳX\mathcal{M}_{X} we write 𝒳′≥𝒳\mathcal{X}^{\prime}\geq\mathcal{X} if there exists a morphism 𝒳′→𝒳\mathcal{X}^{\prime}\to\mathcal{X} obtained by blowing up an ideal sheaf co-supported on the special fiber of 𝒳\mathcal{X}. This turns ℳX\mathcal{M}_{X} into a directed set.

Given a model 𝒳\mathcal{X}, let (Ei)i∈I(E_{i})_{i\in I} be the set of irreducible components of the special fiber. For each subset J⊂IJ\subset I set EJ:=⋂j∈JEjE_{J}:=\bigcap_{j\in J}E_{j}. A regular model 𝒳\mathcal{X} is an SNC model if the special fiber has simple normal crossing support and EJE_{J} is irreducible (or empty) for each J⊂IJ\subset I.

As a topological space, the Berkovich space XanX^{\mathrm{an}} attached to the given smooth projective KK-variety XX is compact and can be described as follows (cf. [Ber90, Theorem 3.4.1]). Choose a finite cover of XX by affine open subsets of the form U=Spec⁡AU=\spec A where AA is a KK-algebra of finite type. The Berkovich space UanU^{\mathrm{an}} is defined as the set of all multiplicative seminorms |⋅|:A→𝐑+|\cdot|:A\to\mathbf{R}_{+} extending the given absolute value of KK, endowed with the topology of pointwise convergence. The space XanX^{\mathrm{an}} is obtained by gluing the open sets UanU^{\mathrm{an}}.

There is a natural equivalence of categories between projective KK-analytic spaces and projective KK-schemes, see [Ber90, §3.4]. In the sequel we shall therefore always identify a projective KK-scheme with its associated Berkovich space and write Xan=XX^{\mathrm{an}}=X.

Let 𝒳\mathcal{X} be a model of XX. To each irreducible component EE of the special fiber is associated a divisorial valuation ordE\ord_{E} of the function field of XX. After rescaling and exponentiating, this gives rise to an element xE∈Xx_{E}\in X called a divisorial point. The set XdivX^{\mathrm{div}} of divisorial points is dense in XX.

When 𝒳\mathcal{X} is an SNC model, we can refine this construction. Write the special fiber as 𝒳0=∑i∈Ibi​Ei\mathcal{X}_{0}=\sum_{i\in I}b_{i}E_{i}. The dual complex Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} of 𝒳\mathcal{X} is the simplicial complex whose vertices correspond to the irreducible components EiE_{i} and whose simplices correspond to nonempty intersections EJE_{J}. We can equip Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} with an (integral) affine structure and embed it in the Berkovich space XX as follows.

Consider a subset J⊂IJ\subset I with EJ≠∅E_{J}\neq\emptyset and pick w=(wj)j∈Jw=(w_{j})_{j\in J} with wj≥0w_{j}\geq 0 and ∑j∈Jbj​wj=1\sum_{j\in J}b_{j}w_{j}=1. Let ξJ\xi_{J} be the generic point of EJE_{J} and pick a system (zj)j∈J(z_{j})_{j\in J} of regular parameters for 𝒪𝒳,ξJ\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X},\xi_{J}} with zjz_{j} defining EjE_{j}. By Cohen’s structure theorem, 𝒪^𝒳,ξJ≃κ⁡(ξJ)​[[zj,j∈J]]\widehat{\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{X},\xi_{J}}\simeq\kappa(\xi_{J})[[z_{j},j\in J]]. Let vJ,wv_{J,w} be the restriction to 𝒪𝒳,ξ\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X},\xi} of the monomial valuation on this power series ring, taking value wjw_{j} on zjz_{j}, i.e. vJ,w​(∑α∈𝐍Jcα​zα)=min⁡{∑j∈Jwj​αj∣cα≠0}v_{J,w}\left(\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbf{N}^{J}}c_{\alpha}z^{\alpha}\right)=\min\left\{\sum_{j\in J}w_{j}\alpha_{j}\mid c_{\alpha}\neq 0\right\}. Then e−vJ,w∈Xe^{-v_{J,w}}\in X. This defines an embedding emb𝒳:Δ𝒳→X\emb_{\mathcal{X}}:\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}\to X, and the parameters ww equip Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} with an affine structure.

There is also a retraction p𝒳:X→Δ𝒳p_{\mathcal{X}}:X\to\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}, defined as follows. Any point x∈Xx\in X admits a center on 𝒳\mathcal{X}. This is the unique point ξ=c𝒳​(x)∈𝒳0\xi=c_{\mathcal{X}}(x)\in\mathcal{X}_{0} such that |φ|x≤1|\varphi|_{x}\leq 1 for φ∈𝒪𝒳,ξ\varphi\in\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X},\xi} and |φ|x<1|\varphi|_{x}<1 for φ∈𝔪𝒳,ξ\varphi\in\mathfrak{m}_{\mathcal{X},\xi}. Let J⊂IJ\subset I be the maximal subset such that ξ∈EJ\xi\in E_{J}. Then p𝒳​(x)∈Δ𝒳p_{\mathcal{X}}(x)\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} corresponds to the monomial valuation with weight −log⁡|zj|x-\log|z_{j}|_{x}, j∈Jj\in J.

We have p𝒳=idp_{\mathcal{X}}=\id on Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}. If 𝒴\mathcal{Y} dominates 𝒳\mathcal{X}, then Δ𝒳⊂Δ𝒴\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}\subset\Delta_{\mathcal{Y}} and p𝒳∘p𝒴=p𝒳p_{\mathcal{X}}\circ p_{\mathcal{Y}}=p_{\mathcal{X}}. The retractions induce a homeomorphism of XX onto the inverse limit lim←⁡Δ𝒳\varprojlim\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}.

In order to keep notation light, we shall identify Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} with its image in XX under emb𝒳\emb_{\mathcal{X}}. Note that this convention differs from the one adopted in [BFJ11]. A point in XX lying in some dual complex Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} is called quasi-monomial, and the set of such points is denoted by XqmX^{\mathrm{qm}}.

2.2. Model functions

Let 𝒳\mathcal{X} be a model of XX. A vertical fractional ideal sheaf 𝔞\mathfrak{a} is a finitely generated 𝒪𝒳\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}-submodule of the function field of 𝒳\mathcal{X} such that 𝔞|X=𝒪X\mathfrak{a}|_{X}=\mathcal{O}_{X}. Then 𝔞\mathfrak{a} defines a continuous function log⁡|𝔞|∈C0​(X)\log|\mathfrak{a}|\in C^{0}(X) by setting

log|𝔞|(x):=max⁡{log⁡|f|x∣f∈𝔞c𝒳​(x)}.\log|\mathfrak{a}|(x):=\max\left\{\log|f|_{x}\mid f\in\mathfrak{a}_{c_{\mathcal{X}}(x)}\right\}.

Note that each vertical Cartier divisor D∈Div0⁡(𝒳)D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}) defines a vertical fractional ideal sheaf 𝒪𝒳​(D)\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}(D), hence a continuous function fD:=log⁡|𝒪𝒳​(D)|f_{D}:=\log|\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}(D)|. Note that f𝒳0f_{\mathcal{X}_{0}} is the constant function 11 since log⁡|t|−1=1\log|t|^{-1}=1. The map D↦fDD\mapsto f_{D} extends by linearity to Div0⁡(𝒳)𝐑→C0​(X)\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}}\to C^{0}(X).

Definition 2.1.

A function ff on XX is a model function if there exists a model 𝒳\mathcal{X} and a 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-divisor D∈Div0⁡(𝒳)𝐐D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}} such that f=fDf=f_{D}. We then call 𝒳\mathcal{X} a determination of ff. We let 𝒟⁡(X)=𝒟​(X)𝐐\mathcal{D}(X)=\mathcal{D}(X)_{\mathbf{Q}} be the space of model functions on XX.

Proposition 2.2.

[BFJ11, Proposition 2.2] The 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-vector space 𝒟⁡(X)\mathcal{D}(X) of model functions is stable under max. If ff is a model function and 𝒳\mathcal{X} is a determination then ff is affine on each face of Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}.

2.3. Forms and de Rham classes

Let 𝒳\mathcal{X} be a model of XX. The space N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) of (relative, codimension 11) numerical equivalence classes on 𝒳\mathcal{X} is defined as the quotient of Pic⁡(𝒳)𝐑\Pic(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}} by the subspace spanned by numerically trivial line bundles, i.e. those ℒ∈Pic⁡(𝒳)𝐑\mathcal{L}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}} such that ℒ⋅C=0\mathcal{L}\cdot C=0 for all projective curves contained in a fiber of 𝒳→S\mathcal{X}\to S. It is in fact enough to consider vertical curves, i.e. those contained in the special fiber 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0}. A class θ∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) is nef if θ⋅C≥0\theta\cdot C\geq 0 for all such curves CC.

Definition 2.3.

The space of closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms on XX is defined as the direct limit

𝒵1,1​(X):=lim→𝒳∈ℳX⁡N1​(𝒳/S).\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X):=\varinjlim_{\mathcal{X}\in\mathcal{M}_{X}}N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S).

We say that a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ∈𝒵1,1​(X)\theta\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) is determined on a given model 𝒳\mathcal{X} if it is the image of an element θ𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathcal{X}}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S). By definition, two classes θ∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) and θ′∈N1​(𝒳′/S)\theta^{\prime}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}^{\prime}/S) define the same element in 𝒵1,1​(X)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) iff they pull back to the same class on a model dominating both 𝒳\mathcal{X} and 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime}.

Definition 2.4.

A closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ∈𝒵1,1​(X)\theta\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) is semipositive if θ𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathcal{X}}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) is nef for some (or, equivalently, any) determination 𝒳\mathcal{X} of θ\theta.

The natural map N1​(𝒳/S)→N1​(X)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S)\to N^{1}(X) gives rise to a map 𝒵1,1​(X)→N1​(X)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X)\to N^{1}(X) which in fact is surjective. We refer to {θ}\{\theta\} as the de Rham class of the closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ\theta. When θ\theta is semipositive, the de Rham class {θ}∈N1​(X)\{\theta\}\in N^{1}(X) is nef on XX. In what follows, we shall mainly work with forms having ample de Rham class.

Any model function f∈𝒟⁡(X)f\in\mathcal{D}(X) induces a form d​dc​f∈𝒵1,1​(X)dd^{c}f\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) as follows: for any determination 𝒳\mathcal{X} of ff, d​dc​fdd^{c}f is the class of the divisor ∑i∈Ibi​f​(xi)​Ei\sum_{i\in I}b_{i}f(x_{i})E_{i}, where 𝒳0=∑ibi​Ei\mathcal{X}_{0}=\sum_{i}b_{i}E_{i} and xi∈Xx_{i}\in X is the divisorial point associated to EiE_{i}.

2.4. θ\theta-psh functions

Fix a form θ∈𝒵1,1​(X)\theta\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) with ample de Rham class {θ}∈N1​(X)\{\theta\}\in N^{1}(X).

Definition 2.5.

A θ\theta-psh function φ:X→[−∞,+∞[\varphi:X\to[-\infty,+\infty[ is an usc function such that for each SNC model 𝒳\mathcal{X} of XX on which θ\theta is determined we have

  1. (i)

    φ≤φ∘p𝒳\varphi\leq\varphi\circ p_{\mathcal{X}} on XX;

  2. (ii)

    the restriction of φ\varphi to the dual complex Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} is a uniform limit of restrictions of model functions ψ\psi such that θ+d​dc​ψ\theta+dd^{c}\psi is a semipositive form.

We write PSH⁡(X,θ)\PSH(X,\theta) for the set of θ\theta-psh functions on XX.

It is a nontrivial fact that if φ\varphi is a θ\theta-psh model function then the form θ+d​dc​φ\theta+dd^{c}\varphi is in fact semipositive, see [BFJ11, Theorem 5.11]. In particular, the zero function is θ\theta-psh iff θ\theta is semipositive. In this case, max⁡{φ,−t}\max\{\varphi,-t\} is θ\theta-psh when φ\varphi is θ\theta-psh and t∈𝐑t\in\mathbf{R}.

Proposition 2.6.

[BFJ11, Proposition 5.10]. The space of model functions 𝒟⁡(X)\mathcal{D}(X) is spanned by θ\theta-psh model functions.

Proposition 2.7.

[BFJ11, Proposition 7.4]. The set PSH⁡(X,θ)\PSH(X,\theta) is convex. If φ,ψ\varphi,\psi are θ\theta-psh and c∈𝐑c\in\mathbf{R}, then the functions max⁡{φ,ψ}\max\{\varphi,\psi\} and φ+c\varphi+c are also θ\theta-psh.

Proposition 2.8.

[BFJ11, Proposition 7.5]. Any φ∈PSH⁡(X,θ)\varphi\in\PSH(X,\theta) is continuous on the dual complex of any SNC model 𝒳\mathcal{X}, and convex on each of its faces.

In fact, the continuity statement above can be made uniform in φ\varphi:

Theorem 2.9.

[BFJ11, Corollary 7.7] For any SNC model 𝒳\mathcal{X}, the restrictions of all θ\theta-psh functions to the dual complex Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} form an equicontinuous family.

We endow PSH⁡(X,θ)\PSH(X,\theta) with the topology of uniform convergence on dual complexes. Notice that the divisorial points are dense on each dual complex ΔX\Delta_{X}, see [BFJ11, Corollary 3.13] or [JM10, Remark 3.9]. As a consequence of equicontinuity we thus have

Theorem 2.10.

[BFJ11, Theorem 7.8]. For each model function ψ\psi the map φ↦supX(φ−ψ)\varphi\mapsto\sup_{X}(\varphi-\psi) is continuous and proper on PSH⁡(X,θ)\PSH(X,\theta). In particular, the space PSH⁡(X,θ)/𝐑\PSH(X,\theta)/\mathbf{R} is compact. Further, the topology on PSH⁡(X,θ)\PSH(X,\theta) is equivalent to the topology of pointwise convergence on XdivX^{\mathrm{div}}.

Finally we have the following regularization result. Its proof relies on multiplier ideals.

Theorem 2.11.

[BFJ11, Theorem 8.7]. For any θ\theta-psh function φ\varphi, there exists a decreasing net (φj)j(\varphi_{j})_{j} of θ\theta-psh model functions that converges pointwise on XX to φ\varphi.

The complex analogue of this result is due to Demailly [Dem92] (see also [GZ05, Appendix] for the case of a line bundle). By Dini’s lemma, we get as a consequence:

Corollary 2.12.

[BFJ11, Corollary 8.8] The set 𝒟⁡(X)∩PSH⁡(X,θ)\mathcal{D}(X)\cap\PSH(X,\theta) is dense in C0​(X)∩PSH⁡(X,θ)C^{0}(X)\cap\PSH(X,\theta) with respect to uniform convergence on XX.

Proposition 4.5 below refines Theorem 2.11 and asserts that any θ\theta-psh function is actually the decreasing limit of a sequence of θ\theta-psh model functions (but the proof heavily uses Theorem 2.11).

2.5. Envelopes

Let θ\theta be a form as in §2.4.

Proposition 2.13.

[BFJ11, Theorem 7.9]. If (φα)α∈A(\varphi_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in A} is a family of θ\theta-psh functions that is uniformly bounded above, then the usc upper envelope (supαφα)∗(\sup_{\alpha}\varphi_{\alpha})^{*} is also θ\theta-psh.

Recall that the usc regularization u∗u^{*} of a function u:X→[−∞,+∞[u:X\to[-\infty,+\infty[ is the smallest usc function such that u∗≥uu^{*}\geq u.

Definition 2.14.

Let f:X→[−∞,+∞[f:X\to[-\infty,+\infty[ be any function. We define its θ\theta-psh envelope Pθ​(f)P_{\theta}(f) as follows. If there does not exist any φ∈PSH⁡(X,θ)\varphi\in\PSH(X,\theta) such that φ≤f\varphi\leq f on XX then we set Pθ​(f)≡−∞P_{\theta}(f)\equiv-\infty. Otherwise, we define Pθ​(f)P_{\theta}(f) as the usc upper envelope of the set of all θ\theta-psh functions φ\varphi such that φ≤f\varphi\leq f on XX, i.e. we set

Pθ(f):=(sup{φ∣φ∈PSH(X,ω),φ≤f})∗.P_{\theta}(f):=\left(\sup\left\{\varphi\mid\varphi\in\PSH(X,\omega),\,\varphi\leq f\right\}\right)^{*}.

Thanks to Proposition 2.13 Pθ​(f)P_{\theta}(f) is either −∞-\infty or belongs to PSH⁡(X,θ)\PSH(X,\theta). If ff is usc, then clearly Pθ​(f)≤fP_{\theta}(f)\leq f on XX, and Pθ​(f)P_{\theta}(f) is then the largest θ\theta-psh function with this property.

Proposition 2.15.

[BFJ11, Proposition 8.1]

  • (i)

    PθP_{\theta} is non-decreasing: f≤g⇒Pθ​(f)≤Pθ​(g)f\leq g\Rightarrow P_{\theta}(f)\leq P_{\theta}(g).

  • (ii)

    Pθ​(f)P_{\theta}(f) is concave in both arguments:

    Pt​θ+(1−t)​θ′​(t​f+(1−t)​g)≥t​Pθ​(f)+(1−t)​Pθ′​(g)P_{t\theta+(1-t)\theta^{\prime}}\left(tf+(1-t)g\right)\geq tP_{\theta}(f)+(1-t)P_{\theta^{\prime}}(g)

    for 0≤t≤10\leq t\leq 1.

  • (iii)

    For each c∈𝐑c\in\mathbf{R} we have Pθ​(f+c)=Pθ​(f)+cP_{\theta}(f+c)=P_{\theta}(f)+c.

  • (iv)

    PθP_{\theta} is 11-Lipschitz continuous, i.e. supX|Pθ​(f)−Pθ​(g)|≤supX|f−g|\sup_{X}|P_{\theta}(f)-P_{\theta}(g)|\leq\sup_{X}|f-g|.

  • (v)

    Given a bounded function ff and a convergent sequence θm→θ\theta_{m}\to\theta in N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) we have Pθm​(f)→Pθ​(f)P_{\theta_{m}}(f)\to P_{\theta}(f) uniformly on XX.

2.6. Metrized line bundles and curvature forms

We refer to [CL10] for a general account of metrized line bundles in a non-Archimedean context. Suffice it to say that a metric ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\| on a line bundle LL on XX is a way to produce a local continuous function ‖s‖\|s\| on (the Berkovich space) XX from any local section ss of LL.

Let 𝒳\mathcal{X} be a model and ℒ\mathcal{L} a line bundle on 𝒳\mathcal{X} such that ℒ|X=L\mathcal{L}|_{X}=L. To this data one can associate a unique metric ∥⋅∥ℒ\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{L}} on LL with the following property: if ss is a nonvanishing local section of ℒ\mathcal{L} on an open set 𝒰⊂𝒳\mathcal{U}\subset\mathcal{X}, then ‖s‖ℒ≡1\|s\|_{\mathcal{L}}\equiv 1 on U:=𝒰∩XU:=\mathcal{U}\cap X. This makes sense since such a section ss is uniquely defined up to multiplication by an element of Γ⁡(𝒰,𝒪𝒳∗)\Gamma(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}^{*}) and such elements have norm 1.

More generally, any ℒ∈Pic⁡(𝒳)𝐐\mathcal{L}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}} such that ℒ|X=L\mathcal{L}|_{X}=L in Pic⁡(X)𝐐\Pic(X)_{\mathbf{Q}} induces a metric ∥⋅∥ℒ\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{L}} on LL by setting ‖s‖ℒ=‖s⊗m‖m​ℒ1/m\|s\|_{\mathcal{L}}=\|s^{\otimes m}\|_{m\mathcal{L}}^{1/m} for any m∈𝐍∗m\in\mathbf{N}^{*} such that m​ℒm\mathcal{L} is an actual line bundle. Such a metric is called a model metric on LL.

Given a model metric ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\|, any continuous metric on LL is of the form ∥⋅∥e−φ\|\cdot\|e^{-\varphi}, with φ∈C0​(X)\varphi\in C^{0}(X). This is a model metric iff φ\varphi is a model function. By a singular metric on LL we mean an expression of the form ∥⋅∥e−φ\|\cdot\|e^{-\varphi} with φ:X→[−∞,+∞[\varphi:X\to[-\infty,+\infty[ an arbitrary function.

Fix a model metric ∥⋅∥ℒ\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{L}} on LL associated to ℒ∈Pic𝐐⁡(𝒳)\mathcal{L}\in\Pic_{\mathbf{Q}}(\mathcal{X}). The numerical class associated to ℒ\mathcal{L} in N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) induces a form on XX in the sense of §2.3. It does not depend on the choice of model ℒ\mathcal{L} defining the metric. We call it the curvature form of the metric and denote it by c1(L,∥⋅∥)c_{1}(L,\|\cdot\|). By construction, its de Rham class is given by

(2.1) {c1(L,∥⋅∥)}=c1(L)∈N1(X).\{c_{1}(L,\|\cdot\|)\}=c_{1}(L)\in N^{1}(X).

If φ∈𝒟⁡(X)\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(X) is a model function, then

c1(L,∥⋅∥e−φ)=c1(L,∥⋅∥)+ddcφ,c_{1}(L,\|\cdot\|\,e^{-\varphi})=c_{1}(L,\|\cdot\|)+dd^{c}\varphi,

where the form d​dc​φ∈𝒵1,1​(X)dd^{c}\varphi\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) is defined in §2.3.

Definition 2.16.

Fix a model metric ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\| on LL with curvature form θ\theta. Then a singular metric ∥⋅∥e−φ\|\cdot\|e^{-\varphi} is semipositive if the function φ\varphi is θ\theta-psh.

The results in §2.4 have obvious counterparts for singular metrics. In particular, we have:

Theorem 2.17.

Let ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\| be a model metric on LL, associated to a 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-line bundle ℒ\mathcal{L} on a model 𝒳\mathcal{X} of XX. Then

  • (i)

    the metric ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\| is semipositive iff ℒ\mathcal{L} is nef;

  • (ii)

    a continuous metric ∥⋅∥e−φ\|\cdot\|e^{-\varphi} is semipositive iff there exists a sequence of semipositive model metrics ∥⋅∥m=∥⋅∥e−φm\|\cdot\|_{m}=\|\cdot\|e^{-\varphi_{m}} such that φm→φ\varphi_{m}\to\varphi uniformly on XX.

This result implies that our definition of continuous semipositive metric coincides with that of Zhang and others. Unfortunately, the terminology is not uniform across the literature, see Table 1 below.

Model metric: [BFJ11, YZ10] Continuous semipositive metric:
[BFJ11, CL06, CL10]
Algebraic metric: [BPS11, CL06, Liu10] Approachable metric: [BPS11]
Smooth metric: [CL10] Semipositive metric: [YZ10, Liu10]
Root of an algebraic metric: [Gub08] Semipositive admissible metric: [Gub08]
Table 1. Terminology for metrics on line bundles.

2.7. Intersection numbers and Monge-Ampère measures

The Monge-Ampère operator that we will use arises from intersection theory on models.

Let 𝒳\mathcal{X} be a model of XX, and pick numerical classes θ1,𝒳,…,θn,𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{1,\mathcal{X}},\dots,\theta_{n,\mathcal{X}}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S). For any vertical divisor D∈Div0⁡(𝒳)D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}) we define

D⋅θ1⋅…⋅θn:=∑EordE⁡(D)​(θ1,𝒳|E⋅…⋅θn,𝒳|E),D\cdot\theta_{1}\cdot\ldots\cdot\theta_{n}:=\sum_{E}\ord_{E}(D)\,(\theta_{1,\mathcal{X}}|_{E}\cdot\ldots\cdot\theta_{n,\mathcal{X}}|_{E}),

where EE ranges over all irreducible components of the special fiber 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0}. We obtain a pairing that is linear in each entry and symmetric in the θi\theta_{i}’s.

Proposition-Definition 2.18.

To any nn-tuple (θ1,…,θn)(\theta_{1},\dots,\theta_{n}) of closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms we can associated a signed atomic measure θ1∧⋯∧θn\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n} supported on XdivX^{\mathrm{div}} such that

(2.2) ∫Xf​θ1∧⋯∧θn=∑i∈Ibi​f​(xi)​(θ1,𝒳|Ei⋅…⋅θn,𝒳|Ei)\int_{X}f\,\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n}=\sum_{i\in I}b_{i}f(x_{i})\,(\theta_{1,\mathcal{X}}|_{E_{i}}\cdot\ldots\cdot\theta_{n,\mathcal{X}}|_{E_{i}})

for any common determination 𝒳\mathcal{X} of the forms θi\theta_{i}, and for any model function ff. Here we have written the special fiber as 𝒳0=∑i∈Ibi​Ei\mathcal{X}_{0}=\sum_{i\in I}b_{i}E_{i} and xi=xEix_{i}=x_{E_{i}} is the divisorial point associated to EiE_{i}.

Further, (θ1,…,θn)↦θ1∧⋯∧θn(\theta_{1},\dots,\theta_{n})\mapsto\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n} is multilinear and symmetric.

Proof.

Choose a common determination of the forms θi\theta_{i}, and define ∫Xf⁡(θ1∧⋯∧θn)\int_{X}f\,(\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n}) using (2.2). The fact that ∫Xf⁡(θ1∧⋯∧θn)\int_{X}f\,(\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n}) does not depend on the choice of a determination 𝒳\mathcal{X} is a consequence of the projection formula

π∗​D⋅θ1,𝒳⋅…⋅θn,𝒳=D⋅π∗​θ1,𝒳⋅…⋅π∗​θn,𝒳\pi_{*}D\cdot\theta_{1,\mathcal{X}}\cdot\ldots\cdot\theta_{n,\mathcal{X}}=D\cdot\pi^{*}\theta_{1,\mathcal{X}}\cdot\ldots\cdot\pi^{*}\theta_{n,\mathcal{X}}

if π:𝒳′→𝒳\pi:\mathcal{X}^{\prime}\to\mathcal{X}, and DD is any vertical divisor in 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime}.

Then by construction θ1∧⋯∧θn\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n} can be identified with the atomic measure ∑iwi​δxi\sum_{i}w_{i}\delta_{x_{i}} with wi=(θ1,𝒳|Ei⋅…⋅θn,𝒳|Ei)w_{i}=(\theta_{1,\mathcal{X}}|_{E_{i}}\cdot\ldots\cdot\theta_{n,\mathcal{X}}|_{E_{i}}). This measure is supported on the divisorial points associated to the irreducible components of 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0}. The last statement is clear. ∎

Proposition 2.19.

If the forms θ1,…,θn\theta_{1},\dots,\theta_{n} are semipositive, then θ1∧⋯∧θn\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n} is a positive measure, of mass

(2.3) ∫Xθ1∧⋯∧θn={θ1}⋅…⋅{θn}.\int_{X}\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n}=\{\theta_{1}\}\cdot\ldots\cdot\{\theta_{n}\}.
Proof.

Pick a model 𝒳\mathcal{X} such that each θi\theta_{i} is determined by a nef class θi,𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{i,\mathcal{X}}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S). The restriction of θi,𝒳\theta_{i,\mathcal{X}} to each component EωE_{\omega} of 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0} is then also nef, and it follows that the intersection number (θ1,𝒳|E⋅…⋅θn,𝒳|E)(\theta_{1,\mathcal{X}}|_{E}\cdot...\cdot\theta_{n,\mathcal{X}}|_{E}) is non-negative, hence the first assertion. Since the constant function 11 corresponds to the vertical divisor 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0} we have by definition

∫Xθ1∧…∧θn=𝒳0⋅θ1⋅…⋅θn.\int_{X}\theta_{1}\wedge...\wedge\theta_{n}=\mathcal{X}_{0}\cdot\theta_{1}\cdot\ldots\cdot\theta_{n}.

By [Ful98, Example 20.3.3] this is the same as the intersection number against the generic fiber of 𝒳\mathcal{X}, and this is equal to {θ1}⋅…⋅{θn}\{\theta_{1}\}\cdot\ldots\cdot\{\theta_{n}\} by definition. ∎

As a special case, fix θ∈𝒵1,1​(X)\theta\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X). To any θ\theta-psh model functions φ1,…,φn\varphi_{1},\dots,\varphi_{n} we then associate a mixed Monge-Ampère measure

(θ+d​dc​φ1)∧⋯∧(θ+d​dc​φn).(\theta+dd^{c}\varphi_{1})\wedge\dots\wedge(\theta+dd^{c}\varphi_{n}).

This is an atomic positive measure on XX of mass {θ}n\{\theta\}^{n}.

Analogously to the complex case we have the following integration by parts formula:

Proposition 2.20.

If f,g∈𝒟⁡(X)f,g\in\mathcal{D}(X) are model functions and θ1,…,θn−1\theta_{1},\dots,\theta_{n-1} are closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms then we have

∫f​d​dc​g∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1=∫g​d​dc​f∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1.\int f\,dd^{c}g\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}=\int g\,dd^{c}f\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}.
Proof.

Pick a common determination 𝒳\mathcal{X} of f,gf,g and the θi\theta_{i}’s, and divisors D,D′,DiD,D^{\prime},D_{i} such that f=φDf=\varphi_{D}, g=φD′g=\varphi_{D^{\prime}} and θi\theta_{i} is the class in N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) induced by DiD_{i}. Then by definition we have

∫f​d​dc​g∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1=∑EordE⁡(D)​(D′|E⋅D1|E⋅…⋅Dn−1|E)=∑E,E′ordE⁡(D)​ordE′⁡(D′)​(D1|E)|E′∩E⋅…⋅(Dn−1|E)|E′∩E=∑E,E′ordE⁡(D)​ordE′⁡(D′)​(D1|E′)|E∩E′⋅…⋅(Dn−1|E′)|E∩E′=∫g​d​dc​f∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1\int f\,dd^{c}g\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}=\sum_{E}\ord_{E}(D)(D^{\prime}|_{E}\cdot D_{1}|_{E}\cdot...\cdot D_{n-1}|_{E})\\ =\sum_{E,E^{\prime}}\ord_{E}(D)\ord_{E^{\prime}}(D^{\prime})\,(D_{1}|_{E})|_{E^{\prime}\cap E}\cdot...\cdot(D_{n-1}|_{E})|_{E^{\prime}\cap E}\\ =\sum_{E,E^{\prime}}\ord_{E}(D)\ord_{E^{\prime}}(D^{\prime})\,(D_{1}|_{E^{\prime}})|_{E\cap E^{\prime}}\cdot...\cdot(D_{n-1}|_{E^{\prime}})|_{E\cap E^{\prime}}\\ =\int g\,dd^{c}f\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}

where the third equality follows from [Ful98, Theorem 2.4]. ∎

The next result follows from the Hodge index theorem, compare [YZ10, Theorem 2.1.1].

Proposition 2.21.

Suppose θ1,…,θn−1\theta_{1},\dots,\theta_{n-1} are semipositive closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms. Then the symmetric bilinear form

(f,g)↦∫Xf​d​dc​g∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1(f,g)\mapsto\int_{X}f\,dd^{c}g\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}

on 𝒟⁡(X)\mathcal{D}(X) is negative semidefinite. In particular, for any two model functions ff, gg, the following Cauchy-Schwarz inequality holds:

(2.4) |∫Xf​d​dc​g∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1|≤(−∫Xfddcf∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1)1/2(−∫Xgddcg∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1)1/2.\left|\int_{X}f\,dd^{c}g\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}\right|\leq\\ \left(-\int_{X}f\,dd^{c}f\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}\right)^{1/2}\,\left(-\int_{X}g\,dd^{c}g\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}\right)^{1/2}.
Proof of Proposition 2.21.

Fix a model function ff. We need to prove

I:=∫Xf​d​dc​f∧θ1∧⋯∧θn−1≤0I:=\int_{X}f\,dd^{c}f\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_{n-1}\leq 0

Choose a common determination 𝒳\mathcal{X} of φ\varphi and all the θi\theta_{i}. By continuity, we may assume φ=φD\varphi=\varphi_{D} for some D∈Div0⁡(𝒳)𝐐D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}}, and each form θi\theta_{i} is determined by a 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-line bundle ℒi\mathcal{L}_{i} on 𝒳\mathcal{X}. Then I=D2⋅ℒ1⋅…⋅ℒn−1I=D^{2}\cdot\mathcal{L}_{1}\cdot\ldots\cdot\mathcal{L}_{n-1} and the result follows from [YZ10, Theorem 2.1.1 (a)]. ∎

Remark 2.22.

In the complex case we have by Stokes’ theorem

∫fddcg∧θ1∧…∧θn−1=−∫df∧dcg∧θ1∧…∧θn−1,\int f\,dd^{c}g\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge...\wedge\theta_{n-1}=-\int df\wedge d^{c}g\wedge\theta_{1}\wedge...\wedge\theta_{n-1},

and negativity comes from that of the (1,1)(1,1)-form d​f∧dc​fdf\wedge d^{c}f. Recall also that d​f∧dc​f∧ωn−1=|d​f|ω2​ωndf\wedge d^{c}f\wedge\omega^{n-1}=|df|_{\omega}^{2}\,\omega^{n} when ω\omega is a Kähler form, so that (−∫fddcf∧ωn−1)1/2\left(-\int f\,dd^{c}f\wedge\omega^{n-1}\right)^{1/2} is the L2L^{2}-norm of the gradient of ff.

2.8. Radon measures and convergence results

We shall make frequent use of basic integration and measure theory. Let XX be a compact (Hausdorff) space. A Radon measure on XX is a positive linear functional μ:C0​(X)→𝐑\mu:C^{0}(X)\to\mathbf{R}. With this definition, it follows from the Riesz representation theorem that Radon measures are in 1-1 correspondence with regular Borel measures on XX; see [Fol99, §7.1–2].

Since we shall be dealing with (possibly uncountable) nets rather than sequences, one has to be careful using results from integration theory. For example, the monotone convergence theorem is of course not true for general nets. However, as the next results show, integration of semicontinuous functions against Radon measures is often well behaved.

Lemma 2.23.

[Fol99, Proposition 7.12]. If μ\mu is a positive Radon measure on XX and (fj)j(f_{j})_{j} a decreasing net of usc functions on XX, converging pointwise to a (usc) function ff, then limj∫fj​μ=∫f​μ\lim_{j}\int f_{j}\mu=\int f\mu.

In particular, one has

Lemma 2.24.

[Fol99, Corollary 7.13]. If μ\mu is a positive Radon measure on XX and ff is a usc function on XX, then

∫fμ=inf{∫gμ∣f≤g,g∈C0(X)}\int f\mu=\inf\left\{\int g\mu\mid f\leq g,\,g\in C^{0}(X)\right\}
Corollary 2.25.

Let (fj)j(f_{j})_{j} a decreasing net of usc functions on XX converging pointwise to a (usc) function ff, and (μj)j(\mu_{j})_{j} a net of positive Radon measures on XX converging weakly to a positive Radon measure μ\mu. Then

lim supj∫fj​μj≤∫f​μ.\limsup_{j}\int f_{j}\mu_{j}\leq\int f\mu.
Proof.

Upon replacing μj\mu_{j} with (∫μj)−1​μj(\int\mu_{j})^{-1}\mu_{j} we may assume that the μj\mu_{j}’s are probability measures. Fix any ε>0\varepsilon>0. By Lemma 2.24 there exists a continuous function g≥fg\geq f on XX such that ∫g​μ<∫f​μ+ε\int g\mu<\int f\mu+\varepsilon. By Dini’s lemma, we have fj<g+εf_{j}<g+\varepsilon for all j≫1j\gg 1, hence

lim supj∫fj​μj≤lim supj∫g​μj+ε=∫g​μ+ε≤∫f​μ+2​ε.\limsup_{j}\int f_{j}\mu_{j}\leq\limsup_{j}\int g\mu_{j}+\varepsilon=\int g\mu+\varepsilon\leq\int f\mu+2\varepsilon.

since ∫g​μj→∫g​μ\int g\mu_{j}\to\int g\mu by the definition of weak convergence. The result follows. ∎

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